December 17, 2008

So Obama has chosen Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony.

How interesting! A clever choice. It made me go back to my notes on the Saddleback Forum, the hour-long interviews that Obama and McCain gave to Rick Warren back in August. I liked Warren's style and thought Obama had a good little talk with him. Obama obviously has a problem going back to his own spiritual mentors, and this is a good chance to show some warmth to the Christian evangelicals that he offended with his unfortunate remark about bitter Americans clinging to religion.

Andrew Sullivan says "Ugh":
Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.
Who needs omens when Obama was always clear that he opposed same-sex marriage? He said so every time he was asked. It's funny that Sullivan is telling other people to "sober up," when he was the one who was most unsober about Obama during the campaign season.

ADDED: "The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle."

IN THE COMMENTS: Blake challenges me:
Wait, didn't Althouse also take similar stances as Sullivan? Not on gay marriage, but in terms of him saying one thing and meaning the exact opposite?

Am I misremembering?
I respond:
Blake, I wrote [the day after the forum]: "Obama garbled: "The reason that people believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because, uh, of the concern that, uh, uh, about same-sex marriage. I'm not somebody who's [sic] promotes same-sec [sic] marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not, um, that that for a gay partners [sic] to want to visit each other in the hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are [sic]." I think all those little glitches, especially the glaring grammatical error "what marriage are," strongly suggest that he is hiding what he really thinks."

I thought about that when I wrote this post, but I think that privately Obama supports gay marriage, but as a political leader, he has chosen to take the more moderate position. I think he was lying about his "core beliefs" there, but I think he was telling us his official answer as he has consistently.

Now, I do understand why people who put gay rights first detest the symbolism of picking Warren. But who do they think he should have picked instead?
Now, here's why I'm not on the same page as Sullivan:
1. Though I voted for Obama, I didn't fall in love with him. Throughout the campaign season, I looked at him with a critical eye and often thought he was playing us. I was never set up for disillusionment.

2. I thought and continue to think that Obama is reasonably compassionate toward gay people, but that he's coolly practical about amassing and preserving his own political power. He has remained the same. I'm sure he'd be all for gay rights if he'd become a law professor, but he's got a more complex task at hand, and I respect that.

3. I think same-sex marriage is far down on the list of issues for the President to concern himself with and think gay people, like everyone else, need to be realistic about where politicians should be investing their political capital.

4. I reject the hostility that Sullivan shows toward "Christianists" who hold traditional values that he wishes would change. They are an important part of our culture, and Obama needs to relate to them in a positive way.

5. I don't believe the image of the angry, spiteful gay is helpful to the gay rights cause.
Back to the comments. Blake responds:
Yes, perhaps that's what I was thinking of.

I seem to recall other occasions -- non-gay marriage related -- where Obama said one thing and you were of the idea that he felt the opposite.

I'm not trying for a "gotcha" or anything. McCain may have been saying what he actually felt, but you never knew how he was gonna feel the next moment.
Definitely. I think the public Obama persona is an elaborate creation -- an impressive one. I try to imagine what the real Obama is like. For example, as I've said many times, I don't think Obama is religious (and that's why he's able to use religious rhetoric well).

Freeman Hunt says:
Where does the belief come from that Obama secretly supports gay marriage? Just a guess? Based on what? I'd be more likely to believe that he doesn't care in the slightest about gay marriage or any other gay issue. I bet such things barely register as blips on his mental radar, and that when they do register, it's only insofar as he has to handle such issues delicately in politics due to conflicting constituencies.
I tend to assume he's like all the liberal lawprofs I know, but I concede that these people may be chameleons. They are seeking power and prestige in their domain. (Why won't I say "our domain"?) But you have a point.

Peter Hoh says:
Though it's not perfectly apt for this situation, I'm reminded of Megan McArdle's First Rule of Politics:

small groups get favors from the politicians they support only to the extent that it does not annoy large groups who voted for those politicians.

I think he's still worth reading, but Andy's getting too worked up over this. Calm and steady wins the race. He admired that in Obama. He should take the same approach with regard to the effort to recognize same-sex marriage.
Yeah.

Palladian writes:
[Quoting Zachary Paul Sire:] "Inviting 'Rick' is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals. And they're falling for it!"

So your candidate is a liar and a phony who makes false statements about his religious beliefs in order to garner political support? Classy!

"Obama is all about trying to please everyone with gestures and concessions."

Again, you admit that your candidate is a big phony, a big panderer and a big ass-kisser?

"Until he actually starts enacting policies and putting forth his specific agenda, no one should be freaking out."

So when this mythical policy-enacting phase begins, he'll eschew all these lies about religion and beliefs and his true, godless socialist qualities will shine forth?

"And let's be honest. Warren is, as everyone knows, a tool."

Wait, you just admitted that your candidate is a liar and a phony and only says things for political expediency and you're calling Rick Warren a tool? What makes you think you aren't the tool that Obama is using, my little salami-smoker? [NOTE: Both Zachary and Palladian are gay and have been talking to each other in such terms here for a long time. (Titus too.)]

"We should be proud of Obama for using him as well as he is."

We should be proud of Obama for lying about his beliefs and being too ashamed and afraid to admit his true beliefs and feelings about gay rights? So lying and slinking around in the shadows is now a point of pride? Wow. Furl your rainbow flags everyone! Gay pride now means hiding your true feelings and lying your way into high office!

"If this endears another couple hundred thousand evangelicals to Obama, and thus helps him out in 2012, then that's fine by me."

It's fine by you that Obama is lying, just because you think this will give him some political advantage in the next election, even though you don't actually know what he's going to do or whether you'll actually want him to be re-elected? Lying and selling out my true beliefs and double-crossing my countrymen for political gain is admirable? Wow. Reminds me why I don't belong to a political party. I'd rather be a loser than sell my soul to win.

"Trust me, Obama doesn't give a fuck about Rick Warren."

Wow, how admirable a quality in a President! He selects someone who he "doesn't give a fuck about" to give the invocation at his inauguration! Why that kind of cynicism sounds like CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!
Zachary Paul Sire responds to Palladian:
So when this mythical policy-enacting phase begins, he'll eschew all these lies about religion and beliefs and his true, godless socialist qualities will shine forth?

One can HOPE!

Lying and selling out my true beliefs and double-crossing my countrymen...blah blah blah

You can drop the naive act. As if you, or anyone, ever believed that any politician in modern history didn't lie or mask their true intentions to get elected. Spare me the drama.

I have my suspicions of what he'll do (lead an incredibly balanced, pragmatic administration without ruffling anyone's feathers), and until I'm proven otherwise, I make no judgments about the man "selling out beliefs."

He's playing a game that all of them sign up for, not committing moral suicide.
Palladian says:
"He's playing a game that all of them sign up for, not committing moral suicide."

I don't trust the character judgments of those that are already morally dead.
Zachary Paul Sire says:
I love that Sullivan failed to mention how Rev. Joe Lowery, co-founder of the SCLC and a same-sex marriage supporter, is also on the bill for inauguration day, overseeing the benediction. I guess acknowledging that balance would've undercut his blog post and made his whining look even more childish than it already is (if that's possible).
Titus says:
I am a gay and I don't give a shit if Rick Warren gives the invocation.

How's that for the how some in the gay mafia feel?

None of my gay mafia friends give a shit either.

Now if it was Pat Boone I may feel a little bad... but still wouldn't give a shit.

Rick Warren is physically very repulsive though and for that I do feel bad. I hate seeing a fat man.

He is too fat. He has no chin and he thinks he is funny.
Well, you know, Obama used to be fat. Now, he makes a huge point of keeping rail thin.

89 comments:

blake said...

Wait, didn't Althouse also take similar stances as Sullivan? Not on gay marriage, but in terms of him saying one thing and meaning the exact opposite?

Am I misremembering?

Palladian said...

Wow, Sullivan's crush on Obama sure didn't last long. How unpredictable! NOT!

JohnAnnArbor said...

Andy's problems are definition-related. He wants to redefine marriage so that he's included, and he wants to redefine torture so that whatever the administration he hates is guilty of it.

Synova said...

Who needs omens when Obama was always clear that he opposed same-sex marriage?

Needed repeating.

Ann Althouse said...

Blake, I wrote: "Obama garbled: "The reason that people believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because, uh, of the concern that, uh, uh, about same-sex marriage. I'm not somebody who's [sic] promotes same-sec [sic] marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not, um, that that for a gay partners [sic] to want to visit each other in the hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are [sic]." I think all those little glitches, especially the glaring grammatical error "what marriage are," strongly suggest that he is hiding what he really thinks."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/6-things-i-noticed-when-i-rewatched.html

I thought about that when I wrote this post, but I think that privately Obama supports gay marriage, but as a political leader, he has chosen to take the more moderate position. I think he was lying about his "core beliefs" there, but I think he was telling us his official answer as he has consistently.

Now, I do understand why people who put gay rights first detest the symbolism of picking Warren. But who do they think he should have picked instead?

chuck b. said...

Is there some official notice that Obama's team picked Warren?

The inauguration ceremony is planned by the Senate.

http://inaugural.senate.gov/2009/pic.cfm

Also, there are other clergy members participating in the inauguration, including gay friendly Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery who is giving the benediction.

blake said...

Yes, perhaps that's what I was thinking of.

I seem to recall other occasions--non-gay marriage related--where Obama said one thing and you were of the idea that he felt the opposite.

I'm not trying for a "gotcha" or anything. McCain may have been saying what he actually felt, but you never knew how he was gonna feel the next moment.

blake said...

Oh, and the Warren thing is brilliant, I think.

Host with the Most said...

The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle.

Really? Gonna win hearts and minds with that "angry reaction"?

How's that worked out so far?

Here's one example of how:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8

Synova said...

I find it unlikely that Obama is reluctant to support gay marriage for political reasons when he doesn't do the same about abortion.

Which constituency is he feeling he needs to lie to about the one and not the other?

BJM said...

Too clever by half.

Obama is either

a) A DINO (unlikely)
b) Triangulating to the center
c) Running a diversionary ploy

Once Obama submits a budget and begins to fill second tier admin positions and make bench appointments, not the showy cabinet PR fluff, we may have an inkling who Obama is and perhaps what he intends.

blake said...

Syn--

The broad middle of people who are pro-choice but anti-gay marriage?

EDH said...

Questioning Andrew, are we?

You can prove he's yours, CAN'T YOU?

Titusisveryrelaxed said...

I am a gay and I don't give a shit if Rick Warren gives the invocation.

How's that for the how some in the gay mafia feel?

None of my gay mafia friends give a shit either.

Titusisveryrelaxed said...

Now if it was Pat Boone I may feel a little bad...but still wouldn't give a shit.

Titusisveryrelaxed said...

Rick Warren is physically very repulsive though and for that I do feel bad. I hate seeing a fat man.

He is too fat. He has no chin and he thinks he is funny.

Ron said...

Plus, I'm sure Christopher Hitchens will meet this news with the good will and aplomb that he generates throughout the holiday season!

I say let Scarlett Johannson give the invocation as she is a church I can believe in!

Lawgiver said...

But who do they think he should have picked instead?

I would have loved it if he asked Fred Phelps. I mean the entertainment value alone would be priceless.

Palladian said...

I hope President Obama continues to disappoint insane people.

EDH said...

Dare I suggest a photo caption contest?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Inviting "Rick" is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals. And they're falling for it!

Obama is all about trying to please everyone with gestures and concessions. Until he actually starts enacting policies and putting forth his specific agenda, no one should be freaking out.

And let's be honest. Warren is, as everyone knows, a tool. We should be proud of Obama for using him as well as he is. If this endears another couple hundred thousand evangelicals to Obama, and thus helps him out in 2012, then that's fine by me.

jdeeripper said...

EDH said...Dare I suggest a photo caption contest?

I think that's a "bear" trying to bear hug the skinny guy.

Most of the gays seem to like skinny but some like these "bears".

I shouldn't know this.

Obama's people are trying to learn from any Clinton mistakes.

And yet he picked Hillary.

Obama also kept Gates and picked Gen. Jones. Now Rev. Warren. But also picked super Lez Napolitano.

He's triangulating like a Cirque de Soleil performer.

Bill Kilgore said...

Due respect to our beloved host, but it really speaks poorly of a beautiful law professor when she continues to consider Sullivan worthy of discussion.

Aside from the bizarre fetish he has with Palin's vajayjay, using the word "christianist" in an effort to make a legitimate point is roughly akin to arguing that you shouldn't vote for Candidate X because he has cooties. Sure its funny, but its also pathetic, sad, and not worthy of a response from anyone whose intellectual maturity didn't cease when they stopped having cursive letters displayed in their classroom.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Trust me, Obama doesn't give a fuck about Rick Warren.

JAL said...

it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals. And they're falling for it!

Of course there will always be some.

But I know a lot who aren't buying it:

The ones who care about partial birth abortion, whose ears still vibrate from the Rev. Wright's vile sermon snippets, who care that Willam Ayers and Obama were buddies....

Palladian said...

"Inviting "Rick" is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals. And they're falling for it!"

So your candidate is a liar and a phony who makes false statements about his religious beliefs in order to garner political support? Classy!

"Obama is all about trying to please everyone with gestures and concessions."

Again, you admit that your candidate is a big phony, a big panderer and a big ass-kisser?

"Until he actually starts enacting policies and putting forth his specific agenda, no one should be freaking out."

So when this mythical policy-enacting phase begins, he'll eschew all these lies about religion and beliefs and his true, godless socialist qualities will shine forth?

"And let's be honest. Warren is, as everyone knows, a tool."

Wait, you just admitted that your candidate is a liar and a phony and only says things for political expediency and you're calling Rick Warren a tool? What makes you think you aren't the tool that Obama is using, my little salami-smoker?

"We should be proud of Obama for using him as well as he is."

We should be proud of Obama for lying about his beliefs and being too ashamed and afraid to admit his true beliefs and feelings about gay rights? So lying and slinking around in the shadows is now a point of pride? Wow. Furl your rainbow flags everyone! Gay pride now means hiding your true feelings and lying your way into high office!

"If this endears another couple hundred thousand evangelicals to Obama, and thus helps him out in 2012, then that's fine by me."

It's fine by you that Obama is lying, just because you think this will give him some political advantage in the next election, even though you don't actually know what he's going to do or whether you'll actually want him to be re-elected? Lying and selling out my true beliefs and double-crossing my countrymen for political gain is admirable? Wow. Reminds me why I don't belong to a political party. I'd rather be a loser than sell my soul to win.

Palladian said...

"Trust me, Obama doesn't give a fuck about Rick Warren."

Wow, how admirable a quality in a President! He selects someone who he "doesn't give a fuck about" to give the invocation at his inauguration! Why that kind of cynicism sounds like CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!

Zachary Paul Sire said...

So when this mythical policy-enacting phase begins, he'll eschew all these lies about religion and beliefs and his true, godless socialist qualities will shine forth?

One can HOPE!

Lying and selling out my true beliefs and double-crossing my countrymen...blah blah blah

You can drop the naive act. As if you, or anyone, ever believed that any politician in modern history didn't lie or mask their true intentions to get elected. Spare me the drama.

I have my suspicions of what he'll do (lead an incredibly balanced, pragmatic administration without ruffling anyone's feathers), and until I'm proven otherwise, I make no judgments about the man "selling out beliefs."

He's playing a game that all of them sign up for, not committing moral suicide.

Palladian said...

"He's playing a game that all of them sign up for, not committing moral suicide."

I don't trust the character judgments of those that are already morally dead.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I love that Sullivan failed to mention how Rev. Joe Lowery, co-founder of the SCLC and a same-sex marriage supporter, is also on the bill for inauguration day, overseeing the benediction. I guess acknowledging that balance would've undercut his blog post and made his whining look even more childish than it already is (if that's possible).

Anonymous Blogger said...

Not to offend, but if gay activists want others to adopt their view of their political preferences as a civil rights struggle, the last thing they should be doing is throwing hissy fits about their relationships and announcing that they are so totally upset with the incoming President. It really just feeds into the stereotype of the hysterical sissy.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

...gay activists want others to adopt their view of their political preferences...

Equal rights isn't a "political preference."

Speaking of stereotypes, people who use "anonymous" ids are fucking pussies.

peter hoh said...

Though it's not perfectly apt for this situation, I'm reminded of Megan McCardles First Rule of Politics:

small groups get favors from the politicians they support only to the extent that it does not annoy large groups who voted for those politicians.

I think he's still worth reading, but Andy's getting too worked up over this. Calm and steady wins the race. He admired that in Obama. He should take the same approach with regard to the effort to recognize same-sex marriage.

Freeman Hunt said...

Where does the belief come from that Obama secretly supports gay marriage? Just a guess? Based on what? I'd be more likely to believe that he doesn't care in the slightest about gay marriage or any other gay issue. I bet such things barely register as blips on his mental radar, and that when they do register, it's only insofar as he has to handle such issues delicately in politics due to conflicting constituencies.

peter hoh said...

Zach, the anonymous posters are only doing that in their dreams.

Methadras said...

Little Miss Sullivan pulls her zipper up? Shocking!!!

Methadras said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I love that Sullivan failed to mention how Rev. Joe Lowery, co-founder of the SCLC and a same-sex marriage supporter, is also on the bill for inauguration day, overseeing the benediction. I guess acknowledging that balance would've undercut his blog post and made his whining look even more childish than it already is (if that's possible).


Hey, I'm really starting to like the somewhat more temperate and moderated tone in your posts.

Methadras said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

...gay activists want others to adopt their view of their political preferences...

Equal rights isn't a "political preference."

Speaking of stereotypes, people who use "anonymous" ids are fucking pussies.


Aw shoot. Just when I thought there was hope for you yet, you let me down. I'm sure the feelings of disappointment in your life that come from others isn't a strange sensation to you. *sigh*

Donna B. said...

I hate to be such a bore, but I really don't care about who gives an invocation, I'm going to disagree with all of them on some point.

And I don't care who supports or doesn't support gay marriage. I do, but what the hell does that mean?

Why does that support translate into a consistent political ideology -- or theology, as I'm beginning to think political ideology really is.

Can't I just hate everyone? It's so much simpler.

PJ said...

Hmmm. Is this payback at all for Warren screwing over Palin when he related the contents of his personal telephone counsel to her to the media and made it sound like she called him?

Or is Warren just playing media whore again? Can anyone even tell the difference?

All through the election season I kept telling myself that I would enjoy watching Andrew Sullivan flip and flop in the sun after Obama was elected...

And I am. Oh how I am. I think I'm enjoying Obama more than anyone now. And I deserve it.

michael farris said...

Host with the Most said:
"Here's one example of how:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8"

Color me unmoved. She basically told a significant part of her customer base that their deepest emotional attachments are evil and vile and worthy of legal repudiation. And she expects no one to notice or care?

Steven said...

I love some of the rhetoric I'm seeing, like over at oxdown.firedoglake.com:

"[T]he Joint Inaugural Committee has chosen Prop 8 homophobe and noted religious nutcase Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church and Store™ to deliver the Benediction at his Inauguration. This is a horrific insult to the thousands of LGBT Americans who worked to elect Barack Obama president and the millions of LGBT Americans who voted for him."

Hey, you know what might be an even more horrific insult to the thousands of LGBT Americans who worked to elect Barack Obama president, and to the millions of LGBT Americans who voted for him? Inaugurating a man who's a religiously-motivated homophobe as President at Obama's inauguration!

Oh, wait . . .

Seriously. Republican candidates will make their pitch to evangelicals in the 2012 primaries, the Democrats will take quotes and make fundraising calls, and the LGBT community will rally around Obama with money and votes. So why the hell should Obama treat them with anything more than what the Human Rights Campaign is calling "deep disrespect"?

Duscany said...

Althouse: "Now, I do understand why people who put gay rights first detest the symbolism of picking Warren. But who do they think he should have picked instead?"

Doesn't the Episcopalian church have a lesbian Bishop?

blake said...

I have my suspicions of what he'll do (lead an incredibly balanced, pragmatic administration without ruffling anyone's feathers), and until I'm proven otherwise, I make no judgments about the man "selling out beliefs."

But you really don't care, since you're already rooting for this to be a primer for 2012.

I wonder how much more erratic McCain would've been. Could've been! His loss will turn out to be the best thing that has happened to Republicans in a long time.

rhhardin said...

I've never watched an inauguration.

I had assumed it was mostly duck entrails.

Dody Jane said...

So far, Obama is fun! He makes my head spin. I think he wants everyone to like him and, in the spirit of Rodney King, wants everyone to get along.

Skeptical said...

Duscany, The Episcopal Church has a gay bishop, Gene Robinson, of the diocese of New Hampshire, who believes that he is married to a man named Mark Andrew. I think Sullivan would have been happy with that choice.

m00se said...

Hmm. I like Skeptical's approach: "he beleives he is married to a man...".

We need to start treating gay people that are "married" like people you meet in the Laundromat who introduce you to their imaginary friends. "Really? Isn't that nice...".

Titusisveryrelaxed said...

Rick Warren does really look like a gay bear.

Maybe that is the olive branch the gays are getting for Rick Warren speaking.

I expect most religious leaders are not going to support gay marriage and I am ok with that.

Rick Warren basically does this with a big smile on his face and as a result is less threatening to some-I think.

I do think he is a big media whore though and that kind of grosses me out.

I like mysterious exotic private mens.

BumperStickerist said...

Andrew et al. should open their 'Book of Obama' to Chapter 4, verse three, and find the wisdom of Obama contained therein:

Get over it.

-

Windbag said...

Warren is desperately trying to fill the void left by Jerry Falwell. He even looks like him. The difference is that Warren lacks the depth and conviction that Falwell had.

Yup...media whore.

bearbee said...

Until he actually starts enacting policies and putting forth his specific agenda....

Thats the tell. Everything else is crap.

Obama pragmatism **snort** is all about love of power.

Meade said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

Until he actually starts enacting policies and putting forth his specific agenda, no one should be freaking out.

I see. So what you're saying is his words were, in fact, just words? Don't tell me words don't matter!

mcg said...

You know what's funny---before the Warren forum was even announced, a lot of conservative evangelicals considered him to have strayed too far down the liberal theological path. And when it was announced, a lot of conservative politicos were worried that he'd be too soft on Obama on abortion and gay marriage.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Ok, I am cracking up. After all the back and forth and meticulous comment re-posting from Althouse, the entire entry ends with Althouse reminding us that Obama used to be fat. Well done and sort of performance art-esque.

Der Hahn said...

Ideological politicians piss off people I like. Principled politicians piss off people I hate. Pragmatic politicians piss off people I don't care about. That cover it?

Kirby Olson said...

Obama threw gay marriage under the bus on p. 220 of the Hope a Dope document.

But he's a very clever opportunist.

He realizes that he has to get the fundamentalist Christians on board, and is doing it with the Warren invitation. Obama's clever. I like him.

I hope he keeps pulling centrist moves like this. Who cares what he believes as long as he's doing a good job pulling the country together.

Ironically the Republicans were much more likely to go for gay marriage: or at least McCain and Giuliani were more likely to go for it.

Mitt wouldn't.

mcg said...

Gay Obamaniacs just got punk'd

kollette27 said...

I hate it when the gays get their panties in a wad, jeez. You people act like you should have everything. You have the right to be gay, and be completely open about it. It is only a matter of time before you get the right to marry. Just be patient for God's sake. Now at the same time, I have the right to oppose same sex marriage and I have the right to oppose it in public. So dont sit there and plead the constitution with me because the same document that gives you the right be be gay, gives me the same right to hate it and tell the world, and raise my children to know better.

Anthony said...

>Though I voted for Obama, I didn't fall in love with him. Throughout the campaign season, I looked at him with a critical eye and often thought he was playing us. I was never set up for disillusionment.

I think that was apart of the problem. Obama built a cult of personality around him. He was a blank slate (though nothing he has done so far frankly surprised me) upon which lots of people projected their hopes and beliefs. Sullivan was practically messing his pants over Obama for emotional reasons.

Let's face it, lots of people fell in love with Obama. And that is why I fear the disilusionment will be worse.

I also think that Obama represents the rise of what you could call the liberal yuppie class, or the bobos or the creative class. The US economy has changed, and more people make their living on intellectual property rather than traditional ways. This class has felt left out -- since JFK's best and brightest, they have been on the side, looking in. Bill Clinton sort of promised them power, but once in office, especially after the 1994 election, governed like a moderate Republican. So this class mouthed the slogans, but voted mostly I think because they felt they were voting one of their own, that they were finally to be in charge.

Big Mike said...

LOL. Barack Obama read The Prince and has taken most (all?) of its maxims to heart.

Isn't reaching out to former political foes and ignoring supporters who think they own you right out of the book? And it's a pretty old book.

peter hoh said...

kollette27 wrote: I have the right to oppose same sex marriage and I have the right to oppose it in public.

I think this is a specious claim. How would legal recognition for same sex marriage change that?

Suppose I opposed women's suffrage. Would it make any sense for me to suggest that the 19th amendment restricts my right to oppose women's suffrage?

I might be ridiculed for writing letters to the editor opposing women's suffrage, but my free speech rights would not be restricted.

knox said...

Inviting "Rick" is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals.

How can this be anything but willful self-deception? It's mindful of the vitriol directed at Mormons --instead of blacks and latinos--when prop 8 passed.

Obama already won. What would be the purpose of a conciliatory gesture to evangelicals at this point, other than to "be liked"?

Dody Jane says Obama is fun. I agree, but his supporters are also a hoot. He's got them coming and going, and they really don't know whether to shit or go blind.

Palladian said...

"So dont sit there and plead the constitution with me because the same document that gives you the right be be gay, gives me the same right to hate it and tell the world, and raise my children to know better."

The Constitution is indeed an amazing document if it can simultaneously give you the right to "tell the world" that you hate gay people and to raise your children to know better than to be a hateful bigot like you.

TMink said...

Palladian is correct as usual when he writes: "Inviting "Rick" is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals."

Yep, Obama was clear with his stance toward so called gay marriage. Inviting "Rick" is the sneaky part!

Trey

Anthony said...

>Yep, Obama was clear with his stance toward so called gay marriage.

I believe that Obama has told people that he opposes gay marriage on religious grounds, but supports some other sort of arrangement.

Yet, he also opposed Prop. 8 (which addressed the marriage issue, not civil unions).

So, what exactly is his position?

(For the record, I am a conserative who supports gay marriage, so long as it is done on a state by state basis and through legislative action or referenda)

Ann Althouse said...

"Ok, I am cracking up. After all the back and forth and meticulous comment re-posting from Althouse, the entire entry ends with Althouse reminding us that Obama used to be fat. Well done and sort of performance art-esque."

I hope you understand how I meant it on so many levels.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

This is the difficulty of establishing an aura of being strongly in one general camp (in this case, liberal). Other liberals then just assume you agree with them and are only saying contrary things to get elected. They feel sure you are still part of the tribe. That you double-crossed the other guys doesn't bother them, they knew it all along (wink, wink). But when you renege on what you told them, there is wounded outrage.

downtownlad said...

I never cared about Rev. Wright. I never cared about Bill Ayers. And I don't care about Rick Warren. Let's stop this guilt by association.

Obama believes what he believes. Since when is he responsible for all of the beliefs of anyone he associates with.

What a pointless thing to get upset by.

Palladian said...

"What a pointless thing to get upset by."

Says the master of getting upset over pointless things.

Palladian said...

"Palladian is correct as usual when he writes: "Inviting "Rick" is not a slap in the face to gays as much as it is a disingenuous olive branch to evangelicals.""

I didn't say that, I was quoting Zachary Paul Sire. Keep in mind that ZPS approves of that disingenuous olive branch.

What is a disingenuous olive branch, anyway? A thorn bush in olive tree drag?

Anthony said...

>Says the master of getting upset over pointless things.


If we cannot get upset over pointless things, what is the point of getting upset over things where we might actually do damage over?

In any event, I voted against Obama for reasons other than his associations. (I think partly is was because he struck me as a managerial state type and partly so I could be a class traitor, but I digress).

However, in some ways his associations are important. In Rev. Wright's case, it was not simply the local church where he sat down while a few different ministers cycled through (as they would in a Catholic chruch). Rather, Obama said that Wright was a key in his spiritual awakening.

With Ayers, the whle thing was strange. but I am more concerned with Obama's decisions when he headed the CAC then with Ayers's participation.

In both cases, I think Obama used Wright and Ayers to get street cred and tossed them out when they wereno longer needed.

The said...

Despite Obama's stance of being anti same-sex-marriage, and despite Obama's slap-in-the-face-to-gays choice of Rick Warren, I wonder how many gay people out there are still willing to slavishly support the Democrats next election cycle? Sadly, I'm guessing the majority will. And many will twist themselves in knots to 'give the President-elect a chance' and still feel good about him.

Obama's choice was politics, pure and simple. He knows gays will still vote for him in droves, so they're a constituency he can take for granted. Just as the Clintons did. Just as the Democratic Party always has.

Too many gay people are anti-Republican because it's fashionable to paint the entire party as right-wing bible-thumpers. (To be sure, the GOP has earned that image as of late.) But until the gay community stops blindly supporting the Democrats, very little is likely to change. And even less will be change you can believe in.

BJM said...

Palladian said:I don't trust the character judgments of those that are already morally dead.

Is that not the description of a philosophical zombie?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I hope you understand how I meant it on so many levels.

! I do.

h0mi said...

Where does the belief come from that Obama secretly supports gay marriage? Just a guess? Based on what?

He says he opposes gay marriage; doesn’t that mean he opposes the government recognizing or sanctioning gay marriages the way heterosexual marriages are? Yet, he’s opposed every law (AFAIK) that would disallow the government from doing just this. The stance makes no sense to me; this is nothing at all like personally opposing abortion while opposing prohibitions of it. Would Obama really suggest to his gay friends not to get married if/where they could?

Leonidas said...

Interesting to see Sullivan quoted, he lost his credibility during the election and I'm surprised anyone bothers with reading him at all anymore.

JBlog said...

Who needs omens when Obama was always clear that he opposed same-sex marriage? He said so every time he was asked.

Further to that point, CNN exit polls in California indicated that 93 percent of African-American voters voted for Barack Obama, and 70 percent of the also voted for Prop 8.

Which I guess means that while they were voting for diversity they were also voting...against it.

Progressives should probably clean up their own nest on the gay marriage issue before going after conservative Christians.

kollette27 said...

First of all, thank you for so elequently trying to put me in my place, but it didnt work. Secondly, if it were ok to be gay, then all of our parts would work well together, and they dont, so that proves my point right there. Third, if the gay population had their way, it would be taught in schools that the "alternative lifestyle" is acceptable for everyone, and that normal people dont have the right to despise it. All it would take is for them to get a prominent leader in their pocket and they would have such. I have the right to teach my children that it is wrong to live that lifestyle. I dont hate people who live it, I despise the way they live, which is unnatural. Some of the funniest people in the world are gay, some of my closest friends are gay, and they know that I dont approve and that I will not teach my children to accept the lifestyle, rather accept the people. And to them, I am not a bigot, I am a person who would rather stand up for her morals than to be who I'm not just to stay friends with them. As far as womens sufferage? Please, complain all you want!! Maybe something will change, because personally I am sick and tired of working. I would rather stay at home with my children, clean my house and cook my family's meals than work everyday, I'm sick of it. So that little comment did nothing but remind me that neither you or I can change anything regardless of how deeply we feel about it.

SallyLeigh said...

As a Christian, I have to ask, what is a Christianist?

Jeremy said...

dtl said "Obama believes what he believes. Since when is he responsible for all of the beliefs of anyone he associates with."

No doubt. To wit, Warren also believes that it's appropriate to wear awful Hawaiian shirts in public. No way Obama goes for that.

Aristides said...

I don't believe the image of the angry, spiteful gay is helpful to the gay rights cause.

Whereas, legitimizing anti-gay bigots is.

Aristides said...

I have the right to teach my children that it is wrong to live that lifestyle.

Yes you do. At home, or your Christian private school.

...some of my closest friends are gay

Anyone who resorts to the "some of my closest friends are [fill in the blank]" has already lost. Also, your "close" gay friends may not feel the same way about you. Unique is the person who can be friends with someone who "despises" their lifestyle.

Progressives should probably clean up their own nest on the gay marriage issue before going after conservative Christians.

Yes, because it's blacks who are preventing gay marriage in this country and in California. Oh, or not:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Trust me, us liberals are right to focus are ire on you conservative Christians.

Freeman Hunt said...

Trust me

No.

peter hoh said...

Trust me, us liberals are right to focus are ire on you conservative Christians.

Where do I begin?

peter hoh said...

Kollette, now that I have my glasses on and looked at your first comment again, I realize I was misread you. I thought you were making the claim that now you have the right to oppose it, as if you would lose that right if same sex marriage was recognize. My bad.

h0mi said...

Yes, because it's blacks who are preventing gay marriage in this country and in California. Oh, or not:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Trust me, us liberals are right to focus are ire on you conservative Christians.


From the 538 site:

Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

Instead of using "proxies" and assumptions it would be helpful to have actual data. We don't have it, however. We don't know how much of that growth in either groups' vote were "new voters aged 18-29" and while Silver's assumptions aren't unreasonable, they're still assumptions, not facts.

Gay Orange County said...

I, like so many of my gay friends, gave a lot of money to Obama's campaign. We worked tirelessly to get him elected. Now Obama decides to invite Rick Warren, who equates gays to rapists and child molesters; and who excludes gays from being members of his church to do the invocation? How many of Warren's followers do you think gave as much to the campaign as gays did? How many of Warren's followers worked as hard to get Obama elected as gays did? Warren is to gays what a Grand Wizard of the KKK is to African Americans. Obama has made it perfectly clear with this invitation how he feels about the gay community.

Do you think Obama would have had as much of a landslide if it wasn't for the gay community? I don't think so. I hope for his sake that all the evangelicals he is pandering to move over to his camp come reelection time; gays will be voting for a third party candidate from now on. It's been made perfectly clear that the Democrats don't want us. Good luck to Obama with his presidency. I don't support him any longer. I, like so many fell utterly betrayed.