Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

MBC, what a great post. I could almost take that word for word but change the subject matter to abortion to express my feelings toward that.

It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree with much of MBC's post and am especially grateful for the chance to have "In the Navy" playing through my head in what is otherwise a pokey mornning.

Today it is reported that, as with the death penalty, we are once again a light to the world as, alone among western nations, we have refused to sign a non-binding UN resolution recommending that laws criminalizing homosexuality be repealed. We supposedly cited "legal concerns." I'm not a big fan of nonbinding resolutions, but it would be nice to hear Obama say that he agrees with the substance of the resolution.

[Alex]

People may not change their minds after being yelled but governments frequently do (and all I really care about is government). But I do agree that many aspects of the protests have been misguided from a PR angle.

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

As for the big tent it doesn't strike me as surprising that the symbolism of a purely symbolic invitation is being taken seriously. Quite clearly the calculus was that upsetting one smaller group that has nowhere else to go politically (it isn't like the gay lobby can run to the Republicans with their support) was acceptable to mildly appease a larger group that barely supports him. If his ultimate real actions are good and this loosens the ropes for him to accomplish those goals then it'll have been a properly placed bet.

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

Here's my issue with the selection. As I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios.

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.

or

2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."

Either one says that he simply does not care about the movement for gay rights, and either one deserves a loud response that everyone will hear.

Of course, there's always the conspiratorial 3rd option.

3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.

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've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

Right, which is why I was very clear in stating that it isn't the protests themselves that I have a problem with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

Hmm, I think my reaction, as someone who would be trying to ameliorate with such a choice, would be something like, "Seriously, George? Not buying it."

This whole thing is just more of the O'Reilly definition of "fair and balanced". It's the fallacy that to be "fair" and "accepting" one has to give equal weight to all viewpoints. There's a difference between allowing everyone the opportunity to state their views vs. having to take them all seriously.

[JWBear]

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people. This isn't Fred Phelps wacko that nobody pays attention to; this is someone who sold 20 million copies of a book he wrote. His influence isn't merely Orange County, it is worldwide. People are listening to this man in great numbers and I don't think that comparing their hero to a KKK member is going to change one single mind in the bunch. And that's a problem, because I do think that many of their minds are changeable. The harsh reality is that millions upon millions of Americans do not believe that gay people should have equal rights, and angering and galvanizing them into a more solidified front is simply not the best path to progress. There are far more effective tactics in my opinion.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people. This isn't Fred Phelps wacko that nobody pays attention to; this is someone who sold 20 million copies of a book he wrote. His influence isn't merely Orange County, it is worldwide. People are listening to this man in great numbers and I don't think that comparing their hero to a KKK member is going to change one single mind in the bunch. And that's a problem, because I do think that many of their minds are changeable. The harsh reality is that millions upon millions of Americans do not believe that gay people should have equal rights, and angering and galvanizing them into a more solidified front is simply not the best path to progress. There are far more effective tactics in my opinion.

Neither is honoring one of their most influential leaders.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Neither is honoring one of their most influential leaders.

With all due respect, I just don't see it that way. It isn't some great honor that is going to remembered for centuries like a monument in a national mall. It is a small token gesture in the grand scheme of things, but it is also a representation of Obama's exact platform that he campaigned on. It's just that when he said that he would be inclusive of all viewpoints, most people never considered that it meant being inclusive of viewpoints they strongly disagreed with.

But if we are EVER going to get away from the deep political divides that are fracturing this country, that can only come from giving BOTH sides a little respect. Bush said he would do that and failed miserably because he never really meant it. Obama apparently means it, and I'm hopeful that some good can come from it, even if it means that a guy that I disagree with is allowed to give a three-minute prayer on national TV, especially considering that I highly doubt this invocation will mention one word about gay marriage.