Huffington Post and Politico.com have stories about this.
Here is HuffPo’s Sam Stein’s take on it:
Ever since Barack Obama was elected president, the media has been pining to write a story about liberal dissatisfaction with his transition efforts. By and large, the meme has been blown out of proportion, as the press overestimated how divisive Obama’s cabinet choices were for progressives.
The press may now have its conflict moment. And it comes in the form of the spiritual leader chosen to launch Obama’s inauguration.
On Wednesday, the transition team and Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced that Rick Warren, pastor of the powerful Saddleback Church, would give the invocation on January 20th. The selection may not have been incredibly surprising. Obama and Warren are reportedly close — Obama praised the Megachurch leader in his second book “The Audacity of Hope.” Warren, meanwhile, hosted a values forum between Obama and McCain during the general election. Nevertheless, the announcement is being greeted with deep skepticism in progressive religious and political circles.
Gay leaders are furious.
“Picking Rick Warren to give THE invocation,” wrote John Aravosis on AmericaBlog, “is abominable.”
“Let me get right to the point,” Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a harsh letter to the president-elect, “Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.”
Just yesterday, Obama picked Chicago’s Arne Duncan as Education secretary. The same Duncan who favored an all gay high school in Chicago. Clearly, Obama is more pro-gay than pro-social conservative but this choice is especially galling because Warren supported Proposition 8 in California.
I suspect pro-choice advocates are none too happy either.
I think Obama likes Warren even though he disagrees with him on many issues. Warren clearly brings together evangelical doctrine with social compassion in a way that is attractive. I suspect Obama would like to change Warren’s mind on issues but knowing he cannot, he wants to reinforce the good he sees in Warren and those likeminded.
In any event, we all have to live together even though we disagree on how to even frame up the issues. I doubt Obama will back down on this and may use it as a means to get across a message of co-existence.
UPDATE: 12/18/08 – Sam Stein has the Obama talking points regarding Rick Warren.
• This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.
• In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world’s most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
• Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
• As he’s said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That’s the only way we’ll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
• The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
• And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.
UPDATE: 12/18/08 – Rick Warren just issued a statement via the Christian Newswire. Here is the entire statement:
Statement by Dr. Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church Regarding the Invitation from President-elect Obama to Deliver the Inaugural Invocation
LAKE FOREST, Calif., Dec. 18 /Christian Newswire/ — “I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony.
“Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America.
“The Bible admonishes us to pray for our leaders. I am honored by this opportunity to pray God’s blessing on the office of the President and its current and future inhabitant, asking the Lord to provide wisdom to America’s leaders during this critical time in our nation’s history.”
Media Contact:
A. Larry Ross 469.774.6362
Kristin Cole 615.289.6701
[email protected]
@Jayhuck,
your justifications for gay marriage can be made for open marriage and polygamy as well a adult-child marriage…and for easy divorce.
Using your rationale, I could say, “traditionalists will not go away, so you may as well give into their assertions…”
Not going away or acceding an existing standard just because it is there would undermine the argument for gay marriage 20 years ago.
Change is incremental…whether you are for gay marriage or against it….whether you are for easy divorce or against it.
Your beliefs and passions are real, your logic, faulty.
Ann asked me once if Rick Warren had to do anything. Frankly, I would hope he had a better grasp of reality, but I did not nor do not expect him to do anything. He can be as discriminatory as he wants in his religion.
But recently this page:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509
Where it was stated (in part):
Was evidently removed from the saddlebackfamily.com website. It now defaults to this page, on which nothing concerning homosexuality is said nor possibly linked to:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/whatwebelieve/index.html
One is led to wonder why, is Warren in some way ashamed of what his religion demands?
Then what?
You have shown time and time again an unwillingness to engage others when they confront you on your inconsistent reasoning. And then you whine and *sigh* when they bounce you off a subject because you have tried to derail it with your insistence to take subjects and people out of context.
Don’t you want people to take you seriously. Don’t you want to insist that all people with SSA are gay and should leave their wives and families??? Because that is allyou seem to do. And you NEVER provide documentation just whining and sighing.
LOL – I’m not scared Mary! 🙂
And once again – no answer from Jayhuck.
Jayhuck, what makes you scared to answer??
David,
Some argue that gay marriages are necessary and that treating a group of people as second-class citizens bodes ill for all Americans. Some people argue that putting in place benefits that encourage gay couples to be in stable and long-lasting relationships is actually better for society in the long run. Some argue that gay families, gay parents and the children of gay parents should not be excluded from benefits that others enjoy without question.
Why should we exclude millions of people from a group of benefits and privileges that would only serve to help them? Gay people, gay couples and gay families are never going away, so is it better for society to encourage that their relationships are stable or to make it more difficult for them to have successful relationships? Seriously David!
Gay marriages are already happening, and in some places they have been happening for many years without any noticeable harm. How much PROOF do you need David to grant a victimized and often demonized community equal rights?
Jayhuck
Polygamy is accepted in some cultures, as is man child marriage…should we treat them as givens and figure out how to accommodate them?
Easy divorce is treated as a given, traditionalists are seeking to change that as well.
Same sex marriage may be a given in some liberal democracies and some liberal states in the US…traditionalists argue that this is a change in marriage that should be reversed…for a variety of reasons; some of which include an overactive judiciary or city government bypassing the legislative and executive branches of government (certainly the case here in Oregon, in 2004; which outraged traditionalists and constitutionalists).
Do we really want Gavin Newsom determining by fiat what is a legal and social good when it comes to marriage?
Have the Social Sciences, who endorse a change in the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, demonstrated scientifically that they understand both what makes an enduring loving marriage and how to repair a broken marriage?
Why should we grant them authority in this discussion?
I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot gay (by popular definition?)
That is to read
I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot NOT be gay (by popular definition?)
Either way, if a word or subject can change it’s definition over time – then the question is… Can a person change themselves in definition, too? Taking a very large group of people to redefine something, can we not also apply that to one person who chooses to define themselves differently than how another person would choose to do so?
It is not legal vs personal per se …. just the IDEA on any level that a person can redefine something in their own life. Isn’t that acceptable? If we redefine terms all the time… can we not redefine what it means to have same sex attraction vs having to be called gay? Regardless of what the current populous of our country thinks?
I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot gay (by popular definition?) His reasoning doesn’t make sense and he seems to fit his arguments to his particular likings when it fits his opinion.
That’s all.
Thank you for the need to clarify. Did that help?
I do believe that a person can re-define themselves. It’s their life. It’s their definition. It ought to be one thing that can never be taken from a person. You may define them differently but you shouldn’t make them forsake their definition for yours.
I think your question puzzled me the first time you presented it…and I don’t think you directed it at me anyway…but, it first had an ‘apples and oranges’ feel to it. Legal definition vs self definition. Group consensus definition (laws take discussion and agreement between many) vs individual definition. Public domain vs personal domain.
I ask again – if legal definition or gays can re-define marriage, can not a person redefine themselves??
This is the 2nd time I have asked this question.
Doubt I will ever get a response.
Eddy,
But don’t forget Eddy – even the legal definition of marriage has changed in some places.
The legal definition…the one that Proposition 8 was about…is the definition of marriage that some are concerned about. Other definitions of marriage have changed, as Jayhuck has mentioned several times, but the legal one hasn’t. Some don’t think it should or they want to move cautiously in something as major as redefining legal marriage.
Yeah. I get what you are saying. I’ve heard gay people who prefer civil union over marriage just because they think marriage is a christian or religious rite. I’ve heard a lot of varying opinons.
It’s just that…. I, who supports gay unions/marriage, don’t get why anyone feels threatened by a group of people in this manner.
But you know me Eddy, I just had to turn the screw!! LOL!!!!
I’m struggling to figure out why some continue to talk as if the definition of marriage hasn’t already been changed. It has, at least in many places, here and overseas. I think any discussion needs to include that fact.
Mary–
Some object to gay marriage because it would alter the traditional ‘age of consent male/female’ definition that we’ve had historically. On what basis are we changing it? If our answer to that isn’t well thought through, and we redefine marriage without forethought, it could open a dangerous Pandora’s box. (I’ve heard that there are gay people who object to gay marriage on these grounds. They lean towards ‘civil unions’ instead.)
I just thought of the infamous ‘Berg vs Obama citizenship’ thread. Even when you think you’ve nailed down all the possibilities in a law or amendment, someone comes along who thinks you meant something else. So, if we’re going to change something as fundamental as the definition of marriage that we’ve always had, many hope we would proceed with extreme caution.
RW has issues with the marriage re-definition??
Hasn’t that occurred already with the tax laws, the inheritance laws, the divorce laws, etc..
The marriage of 5000 years ago is certainly not the same thing we observe in this country.
Also, does he have an issue with a Buddhist marrying a Christian, a Muslim marriage (since it is not recognized by the christian church??) etc…
Warren, I agree.
Like Patrick said, it’s not that he RW believes something …it’s the way it was presented.
@Mary: In the sense of activity that provokes a need for forgiveness and redemption, there are no degrees of sin. But in terms of effects, there are some things which have great pragmatic effect. I think it is fine to argue to each other that all sin is the same, but in terms of rhetoric among those who don’t give a care about sin, the arguments need to be effective and appropos.
Ah, the troublesome quote:
Please read the beginning of the first sentence and do the speaker the courtesy of listening before reacting. What is the issue as far as Pastor Warren is concerned? He’s “opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage” What does he fear? He lists behaviors that could find license if the definition is changed without thought to it’s ramifications on other potential unions that would want the same rights and possibly be able to seize them because we changed the age-old definition. Now, back to sentence one. He qualifies with “I’m not opposed to that as much as….” What is that ‘that’ that he’s not opposed to? (Now, that was fun to write.) But, really now, what is ‘that’? (I’m assuming ‘that’ was ‘gay marriage’.) He’s not opposed to ‘that’–gay marriage; I’m assuming that he’s speaking to the benefits/entitlements of marriage but that isn’t clear from the context.
My conclusion is that the outrage was manufactured and then fed to the hungry masses. The statement simply does NOT warrant it. When you couple that with the fact that this pastor has probably done more to address the World Aids Crisis than any other pastor alive today…it’s unfathomable.
Sigh
Jayhuck,
Stop. You are off the subject and intent of the note to another blogger.
Mary,
I’m not trying to chastise you, and I’m not angry, so please don’t mistake my tone – but remember there are SOME churches that believe one thing about homosexuality and others that believe differently. Not all churches, even Christian churches agree that homosexuality is a sin.
Warren,
Granted, I wish they woud not lump them together either. However, isn’t that just a way of silencing others on the fact that sexual behavior that is sinful is well sinful??? Isn’t it time we level the playing feild and start putting sin into one category instead of falsly separating out that some are worse than others?
The church still sees homosexuality as worse than prostitution or drunkeness. And it is all the same. I don’t like the idea that homosexuality is similar to pedophelia in terms of sinfulness. But isn’t it true?
I doubt the regular public gets that idea. But I would like to seee the church own up to it’s declaration that some sins are not so bad as others.
I think you are probably right Warren, but Rick needs to learn not to lump all those things together as if they are equal.
David,
Yes, I am getting tired of that as well.
Patrick,
So ….. isn’t that what I said?? You just don’t like the WAY RW said it???
Well, that makes perfect sense.
@Jayhuck:
I wish gay marriage opponents would not include references to children because it is unnecessary and insulting. However, I believe what Warren is offering here is his reaction to the historical exceptions to man-woman marriage. In history, some cultures have allowed from these three types of arrangements, but he is saying he disagrees with an alteration of the male-female model then and now.
In an academic discussion when the other guy brings up historical exceptions, you might get away with this form of rhetoric but in the popular media, it seems to me to be a mistake and again unnecessary.
David,
The definition of marriage has already been changed – gay people are already getting married – Instead of carrying on and on over what some traditionalists argue, perhaps it is time to figure out how to deal with the reality of the situation.
The traditionalist argument made:
Marriage has been defined over a period of 5000 years (or so).
So has business, government, church functioning, education and so on.
Either because of divine revelation or trial and error marriage has largely seen a steady improvement up to the 1950’s…interestingly, largely without the benefit of the Social Sciences (I would argue through the slow application of Christian Charity).
At that time two further revisions were adopted; one good and one bad:
1. Interracial marriages were no longer forbidden (good)
2. No fault divorce was instituted (bad)
Evolution in an organism is often implied as both an adaptation and an improvement.
Those who argue for additional changes in the sociological institution of marriage need to make the argument less on individual rights and more on the social good that such changes would cause.
Both arguments above can be couched as either individual rights issues or social good issues.
No fault divorce, however, has disproportionately hurt women and children (the target of the proposed social good at the time of the change). It fails the social good, but meets the individual rights issue based on research and the historical breakdown of the family during the last 50 years.
Interracial marriage meets the individual rights issue and the social good issue based upon the same criteria.
There is no shame in being alarmed and concerned about further changes to the institution of marriage based largely on an individual rights argument and based upon examining how other changes (namely divorce) have played out.
Don’t run and hide and call names. Argue the merits.
Are you all aware that the Social Sciences have contributed little over the last 50 years to improve the resiliency of the traditional family?
This is from a Beliefnet Interview Rick did very recently where he equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia (older guy marrying a CHILD) – It IS incredibly insulting to all gay people:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warren-Transcript.aspx?p=7#gaymarriage
Heterosexist.
Homophobe.
Bigot.
Sticks and stones…
It is stunning to me how those who have been so deeply hurt, will use the same weapon on their enemies…with self-righteous, mindreading, “infallible” authority.
Do we really want to see eachother, meet eachother, hear eachother?
Or do we need a forum to vent our spleen on our contrived enemies?
Persistence seems to sometimes win an argument, regardless of the merits of that argument.
Jayhuck and others want to conflate an existing prohibition in civil marriage verbalized by RW as an assertion by RW that gays and lesbians are pedophiles.
That is not what he said.
Sometimes we choose to be injured and offended…we do.
There are a number of disqualifiers for both religious and civil marriage. Citing them does not make you a bigot or hateful…agreeing with them doesn’t make you hateful…
Traditionalists should not be shamed into silence by your distortion of words and name-calling.
Ann,
Gay marriage is going to have to come in degrees. It will not happen overnight, and I think Obama knows that. He will champion civil unions – and as I’ve said so many times before, as long as the rights are the same, I don’t care so much what people feel the need to call it 🙂
Jayhuck,
Then why won’t he endorse the right for same gender couples to marry and be on equal footing with heterosexual couples?
I give up.
Mary I don’t think you read a word I wrote.
You continue to put words in my mouth, you have no idea how or what I feel.
You create strawmen about what I supposedly think and then spend the rest of your message tearing them down.
I have no problem with TC expressing his views on homosexuality – in public – because he is not disrespectful in the manner in which he does it. I do not feel the same about RW.
This is my final post on this..
I think the president-elect has the right to invite the person of his choice to speak at his inauguration.
LGBT people also have the right to be offended by his choice.
If I were attending this inauguration, I would quite simply vote with my feet and walk out when this bigot started to speak. If all LGBT people present were to do the same, I think the point would be clearly made.
Amitiés
Steven
There is an interesting OPINION piece in the LA Times on this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6597471.story
Patrick –
Just let it go – RW is ONLY at the inauguration, then he will be gone! Obama does NOT share many of his views – we have a good and true friend in Obama! I think it would do the gay community a world of good to just let this thing pass – as offensive as Mr, Warren has been to our community. He is not and will not be a part of the new administration – Thank Merciful God!!!! 🙂
Yes, but only if they do not speak their mind are they okay with you????
TC does not view homosexual behavior as biblical. He does respect gay people. And you are aware that he has a wife who views this issue differently??
No come on Patrick. Think about it. Are you going to go public with a view all the time when YOUR life partner has a different view – especially on something as volatile??
But are you really saying that it’s okay to have your thoughts just as long as you don’t speak them????
That is even stranger.
I think what you really want – and so do I, is the person who represents you/me the most. But the reality of that happening is slim to none.
Honeslty, I would prefer someone like TC because he is all about helping the disadvantaged. And truly gay people in America is not high on the list of anyone who has a truly global concern for the suffering multitudes of this world. That would be awesome to have someone like TC represent for the nation but not because of his view on homosexual behavior – and because of his global view on helping others.
But to think that you want TC only because he has not voiced what his theology points to … is well…. kind of like saying ….. you can have your ideas but don’t speak them in public. Then I’ll like you.
I’m sorry Patrick … but at least half of america (or thereabouts) still puts homosexual behavior in the sin category and when you look at the sexual sin category… there are many others … some of them we are more accepting of and some of them we abhor. Understandably, that hurts your feelings. And if you look at TC’s theology (read his book on red letter christians) I think you will see his view.
It’s hard to see that some people will never like us for somethings, no matter what they say to us, or how they treat us or what they do not say etc… People just diagree. Let’s hope we can do so in a more civil manner than has been expressed in the last few years. That includes me, too.
Um do you remember a message or two ago where I said that I would be okay with TC doing the invocation. So no I don’t believe that everyone has to have the same views as myself to be at the inauguration.
Only people that believe exactly the same as I do and say so and stuff can be at the inauguration!!!
Yeah, that’s the American way!!!LOL!!!
Patrick, honeslty you are sounding a bit – well – you know.
Just think if someone like myself were saying that kind of thing? You’d be all over it and talk about freedoms and beliefs etc..
Come on!! Pal, you cannot be serious???
Patrick,
That is your interpretation of what he said, however, that is not what he said and it is eggregious for you to put a word in his mouth and then espouse it as a truth when in fact he never used the word.
Apparently Barak Obama does not share your views because he specifically chose Rick Warren, thereby distinguishing him from all the other ministers who would have readily accepted.
I don’t agree that Obama should have to give him a voice in this instance however.
Patrick,
I don’t believe Barak Obama thought he “had” to give him a voice – he likes and respects him enough to “ask” him to represent his inauguration with the invocation. It could have been Jeremiah Wright if things would have stayed status quo but they didn’t.
Oh Ann lets now go there again
Gay relationships = adult/child = pedophile.
And his views on prop8, on his offensive comparisons should have caused Obama not to give him voice in the first place. It isn’t like Obama is obligated to choose RW.
He could choose anyone he wanted.
He hasn’t (as far as I am aware) compared homosexuals to pedophiles
Patrick,
Neither has Rick Warren – remember?
“give him a voice”??? He doesn’t preach a sermon; he says a brief prayer that he tries to pray without offending anyone in our pluralistic nation. Why should his beliefs re Proposition 8 be worthy cause to take away his voice with respect to praying that prayer?
RW is the head of a megachurch – he has plenty of opportunity to speak – and to lots of people. I don’t agree that Obama should have to give him a voice in this instance however.
Offended. Okay.. not outraged but offended that someone’s religion does not view your views in the the way that fits your belief system.
Unfortunately Patrick, acting on homosexuality is not different than acting on any other sexual sin in the perspective of many christian churches.
BTW, I LOVE TC!!!!!! He’s awesome. NOw there’s a guy who puts his money where his mouth is. WE agree on that!!!
Now, whether or not TC says it publicly or not…. if you follow his theology …. it points to the same ideas. However, TC has to live with his wife who does not believe homosexual acts are sinful.
Intimidation, my friend. Intimidation deos not change minds. It just keeps them unspoken. Sorry. But homosexual acts are comparable to all the other sexual sins – if that is your theology. And that is RW’s theology. He spoke his belief.
Would it be any different if he just believed them and said nothing???
Do you want RW coming over to your house, sitting at your kitchen table and telling you to be quiet???
Thus, far you have indicated that the answer wqould be ‘No.”
Please lets be clear about something Mary.
I am not outraged.
I am offended however at a comparison between a pederast relationship and mine. But at no point do I think RW should switch his views to agree with me. I just don’t think his is a good choice for the invocation.
Lets take Tony Campolo as a contrast here. He believe homosexuality is a sin. He hasn’t (as far as I am aware) compared homosexuals to pedophiles (even to make the point that they are both sins in the Christian worldview). I wouldn’t be offended if Obama chose him – even though he and I do not agree on many points. The difference being I get the sense he is respectful to glbt persons – whereas I do not get that sense from RW. You disagree. Fine, we will have to agree to disagree then.
Jayhuck,
Stop and read carefully before you jump to conclusions about my support or defense of someone.
BTW, if gays have re-defined marriage …I’m just wondering can someone who has or had gay feelings in the past re-define themselves??
Of course you will not answer because that would show the discrepancy in your logic and unveil your thin gloss.
Patrick,
First let me say, I do not agree with RW on many theological issues. He would not be my pastor.
Secondly, I am not defending his views as much as I am defending what he is saying.
He does not agree with gay marriage. He does not agree with adult/child marriage. Those items are documentable.
You don’t like being compared to a pedophile or pederast.
Just as much as you don’t want someone like RW determining your life, I am certain that he wants the same from you. In other words, you would not be a good pastor fit for him.
Unfortunately, RW’s opinion on sinful behavior does not discriminate between gay sin, adulterous sin, child molestation etc… That is his religion.
And many people in america who do not support gay marriage will still be your friend but continue to disagree with your views on homosexuality and the appropriateness of that sexuality.
That outrages you that you cannot get others to view homosexuality the same way you do. You don’t like being in the same category as a pedophile etc…
Like all other sexualities – adultery, incest, prostitution, pedophilia or pederasty etc…. homosexuality is considered inappropriate behavior by many christian sects. That’s all.
Jayhuck,
Ouch – name calling again. This stands in the way – people pay attention to what you call them instead of what you have to say. Really, does calling people disparaging names benefit you or advance credibility to what you have to say in any way?
Jayhuck,
I don’t think the people around the world who have benefited from his extensive work and time and money and advocacy of awareness for those suffering from AIDS would agree with your above statement.
Folks, I apologize for this brief response but I’ve informed Jayhuck some time ago that I will not engage in conversation with him. His knack for missing the point and then reevaluating and reinterpreting what others have said is something I will not engage in any longer.
My major point was that Ann and Mary are not playing word games. My secondary point is that there is no clear evidence that Pastor Warren has little or no compassion for gays based on what’s been presented in this topic and the subsequent discussion.
Eddy,
The correct term for those people is probably heterosexist! I don’t believe RW has zero compassion either, but that’s not saying much for him – we also can’t pretend that all civil unions are equal to marriage – often there are many benefits that aren’t offered in civil unions that are in marriage. I think the heterosexists and homophobes have the argument wrong though. – gay people can already get married in a religious sense all over the country. The issue is with the secular state. I’m fine with calling the benefits something other than marriage, if that helps others sleep at night, as long as the benefits are the SAME!!!!!!!!
Patrick,
Could this have meant that they are equivalent because they are outside the perimeters of the traditional, religious, and accepted view of marriage by most all over the world? If an exception is made, using the tradition model of marriage for one set of circumstances that the interviewer cited, why couldn’t a case be made for all the examples? Doesn’t RW and Barak Obama hold the same position on equal rights for domestic partners? I know they, as well as Bill Clinton, who was responsible for the defense of marriage act, all hold the same position about the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Neither of them have deviated on their positon that I know of. I still think the use of the word “marriage” suspends and/or prolongs the advancement of equal rights.
Thanks Patrick. I don’t expect that he will ever be ‘poster child’ for the gay causes but at least he isn’t demonstrating zero compassion.
Re your second statement, I’m reminded of the multiple meanings of many of our words and statements. Take ‘all men are created equal’. That’s what they said. We’re they purposely excluding women or using ‘men’ in the sense of ‘mankind’? (LOL. I’m sure some feminists would argue that many meant ‘men’ to the exclusion of women.) But then we have the ‘created equal’ part. I heartily agree with the statement yet I must reckon with other realities. Yesterday, while Christmas grocery shopping, there were about a half dozen items I didn’t purchase simply because I couldn’t reach them. Yes, I’ve been ‘created equal’, in many senses, to all of mankind but…if I want to pick the statement apart, I could say, equally honestly, that I haven’t been created equal. I’m currently 9 inches shorter than ‘average’…and ‘average’ keeps inching upwards.
In short (no pun intended), I’d want to know what he really meant by equivalent.
RW has said that is not in favour of civil unions. When the interviewer asked about some shared rights (ie hospital visitation, insurance) he said he would be okay with that. It doesn’t appear that he would be in favour of a civil union that is equivalent to a marriage contract (baring name change).
As for RW’s comparison – the interview asked him point blank after his comparison of samesex relationships to adult/child, polygamy and incestual relationships – if he thinks they are equivalent – and he said “yes, I do.”
I
Do we know Pastor Warren’s view on extending partnership rights to gays and lesbians if we stop short of actual gay marriage? Or are we assailing him because of his stand on Proposition 8?
Quite some time ago, we had another discussion on this blog where a few of us suggested that many conservatives might favor domestic parnerships and the protections of the law that could be built into them but the response was a seemingly overwhelming ‘we want marriage; domestic partnerships is a cheap and flimsy substitute.’ Because no one seemed willing to embrace a compromise, the discussion died. My thinking is that if domestic partnerships, not marriage, were the goal, we’d see the support of many who we can now conveniently label as ‘anti-gay’, ‘homophobic’ and ‘non-compassionate’.
As recently as a week or two ago, when discussing ‘confirmation bias’, Ann drew attention to the fact that we misapply the words ‘homophobic’ and ‘homophobe’ to people who have a genuine concern, understanding and compassion for gay people but who don’t agree with all the agendas of the gay activists. Despite the fact that we regularly dispute here over the meaning of words, one prominent blogger supported the use of the word ‘homophobe’ simply because we haven’t been able to come up with an appropriate word to describe these people who don’t actually have hatred or fear of gays…what the ‘phobia’ part of the word screams. (They’ll rave against the term ‘ex-gay’ because it can be interpreted to mean ‘no longer gay in any way, shape or form’. They are outraged at the cruel messages this term implies. Yet, some will excuse simply redefining ‘homophobic’ with no regard for the fact that their meaning can’t be defended by the structure of the word. This isn’t even a word game; it’s word corruption and cruelty. Consider that the offense of the ‘ex-gays’ is that they’ve taken that label on themselves and that the offense of the latter group is placing that label on others who object strenuously to being mislabeled.)
It is this same strategy that is being employed to describe Pastor Warren as having no compassion for gays. They say: If you took the stand he did on Proposition 8, you cannot have compassion; if examples you use to explain your stand involve anything that the gay community also finds objectionable, that will be interpreted as your equating that behavior with homosexuality and will, of course, result in blustery outrage. (I tip my winter hat to David Blakeslee for his insightful comments on the ‘politics of outrage’.)
AMEN!!!!! 🙂
But let’s NOT pretend that Rick Warren is anything CLOSE to compassionate where gay people are concerned! Civil dialogue indeed!!!!
You know what Ann and Mary –
In the end, it doesn’t really matter. RW is not a part of Obama’s staff – AT ALL – he will not be making policy decisions – and for that, I and millions of other Americans are thankful. His ignorant views of gay people will not make a difference in this new administration. Thank merciful God!!!!!
Obviously, the relationships of people who divorce and remarry are no different than older men who marry children. Tell me, are all evangelical pastors this stupid, or is it just the prominent ones?
Whew! It’s a good think Obama didn’t pick Billy or Franklin Graham to do the honors.
Patrick,
I cannot speak for Mary but your comment brings up another interesting point. My personal interpretation of what RW said had nothing to do with his view point of sin. I believe he was talking about where do we draw the line and who is qualified to be the exception to the rule of how marriage is defined. I did not get the word sin or anything related to it from his statement. I thought he was saying if we make an exception here, how do we respond then to others who bring their own unique set of circumstances before the law. As we know, some of these circumstances can be very creative and some of them can be harmful. If the door is opened for one set of circumstances, then many will argue that it should be open for all sets of circumstances.
Patrick,
I can certainly understand how that can be inferred if one is looking for it. I was not – my interpretation of his comment is the one I cited to you. One comment, two very differing takes on it. In fairness, he should not be quoted as using the word pedophile as it can and already has become a truth to some. I appreciate your clarification – thank you.
Well your instance that RW wasn’t referring to pedophila.
Man/child marriage would be by definition pederast. But no he didn’t *directly* say the word pedophile – but the meaning is very clearly inferred from his reference to underage marriages.
Mary’s word games had to do with saying that all RW meant is that all sin is equal when he made the comparison between Adult/child relationships and samesex relationships.
So Patrick, then let me clarify – I said earlier that I disagree with RW on many theological views and that he would not be a pastor of mine. Secondly, I said that RW said that homosexuality is a sin. That is documentable. Also, he does not agree with adult/child marriage. That is documentable.
Which do you find so agregious? That he sees homosexual behavior as sinful or that he sees adult/child marriage as sinful?
Or is that he puts your gay marriage and adult/child marriage as both being wrong.
I am not defending him. I am pointing out that you want him to okay your behavior and not the behavior of another group. Why should he do that? I would bet that he does not support adultery, incest, or serial monogamy either – all things which occur in his church (I am certain).
Is it better if you called him up and told him “Hey, Rick, you can say this and believe this but you can’t say that and you can’t believe this because I don’t. And you should follow me.” ?
I don’t think you want him running your life and I don’t think he wants you running his. That’s all I was saying. Your outrage is that he puts you in the same sexual sin category as other sexual sins. You happen to hate those sexualities as well. But you hold out that homosexuality is acceptable. It hurts to be compared to others you disgust. I know. It hurts me, too.
I am not defending him per se …. just pointing out how it sounds. I know you don’t like the way it sounds.
Patrick,
Since you referred to me by name, please tell me what word games you think I am using. I voiced an opinion and prefaced it with the fact that it was a personal opinion. You asked me what I thought he meant and I told you. Now you are accusing me of word games. Is that fair or right?
I like how you can tell me what I do and do not think Mary.
I do not care personally if someone sees homosexual relationships as a sin. Lots of people do.
But (repeaded for the 100th time) – when someone draws a comparison (and he did say they were equivalent) between an abusive child/man relationship and loving same sex relationships – than yes I am offended.
It is interesting to me the lengths (and what frankly looks like clever word games) that you and Ann are going to defend this man. And then turn around and accuse gay people of having confirmation bias. Maybe it is time to look in the mirror on this one.
Patrick,
Perhaps someone should ask him and allow him to clarify the statement rather than make assumptions about what he meant. Jayhuck used the word pedophile – Rick Warren never used that word. It is unfair to put words in people’s mouths and then spread it as the truth. You just did it by assuming that I knew Rick Warren’s mind when in fact I was responding to use of the word pedophile – Rick Warren never used that word for a comparison and it is eggregious to say he did.
My personal thoughts, without confirmation, about his comment is this – when one exception is made to the traditional institution of marriage as it has been for thousands of years all over the world, it leaves open the door for equality under law for everyone who chooses to engage in relationships of any and all kinds and call it marriage. This would include marriages for underage children, which by most opinions, is not optimal for a young person’s development and well being. There are many other examples but I personally believe this was the one example he used. Where does the law draw the line when it comes to fairness for “all”? I’m not sure if you remember the case of Mary LeTourneou who, in her mid thirties had two children by her 13 year old student and the subsequent fight they had with the law to get married. He had to wait until he was of age and of course for her to complete her jail sentence. I think they should have been able to get married and parent their children together without the law interferring but where do you draw the line? Were they to be the exception, it would open up the door for anyone else who was underage and wanted to get married or be in a domestic relationship.
So what did Rick Warren mean Ann by this comparison between gay relationships and relationships between a man and child ?
How exactly are they similiar – since you seem to know the mind of RW so well – perhaps you could enlighten us.
Patrick,
In RW’s theology marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything that deviates from that is similar in it’s deviation. In other words, it is pretty much agreed on in the evangelical community that one sin is not greater than another. If he compares gay marriage to marriage between an adult and child (and remember we define child differently than at other times in history) then all he is saying is that he sees the behavior in the same category – that as sinful behavior. Obviiously, you don’t like adult with children either. That’s your outrage. You simply do not like the FACT that some people do see homosexual marriage as sinful and unacceptable.
Jayhuck,
Neither did Rick Warren.
Jayhuck,
When Barak Obama invited his friend, Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration, I understood the outrage by the gay community to be because of his support for Proposition 8. I think the comment that Rick Warren made came after the initial outrage. Since they said the same thing about Proposition 8, along with Barak Obama’s concurring position, their comments and position should have had equal coverage. This was not the case and shows a bias. I also think more was read into Rick Warren’s comment than what was actually said or meant. People will read into what they want to believe. That is typical of bias confirmation though.
Ann,
You need to reread the comments from above to understand why gay people are outraged by RW – its not just his opposition to prop 8 – its who he compared gay people to – THAT is the true outrage. I also didn’t see Elton John actively campaigning AGAINST prop 8. These people are NOT the same and the spirit of what they said is entirely different –
I don’t believe Elton John compared gay people to pedophiles Ann –
Jayhuck,
Do you know why Rick Warren’s comment received so much negative press and outrage from the gay community and Elton John’s was barely mentioned. They both said the same thing. Does this seem hypocritical to you?
Ann,
But those attitudes are changing – and at a dramatic rate.
Jayhuck,
If the words “gay” and “marriage” were not used and it was approached as an equal rights issue for all adults who choose to enter into a binding relationship with another, within the perimeters of the law (age, not related, etc.), it would be seen differently then how it is seen now by those who oppose the issue. It is the forcing of an issue, which holds moral implications for many, onto long held religious beliefs and traditions that is unacceptable by the majority of people around the world.
Ann – I highly suggest you read the releases by gay organizations and not gay individuals – I only ever see this issue framed within the context of equal rights
Ann,
I’m fine with calling it something else – I don’t really care what the thepeople government wants to call it – Civil Unions, etc – as long as the rights are the same – it will still be marriage in spirit, and many gay peoples already can and do use the term – Its simply a word! If we must call it something else to get the same rights, so be it. And as much as I love and respect Elton John, he does not speak for all gay people.
And for the record, RW has said some terrible and misleading things about gay people – if you missed them you can read them above
Jayhuck,
Well, all you have to do is look at the response from people when they didn’t get what they thought they should. I don’t actually see it “discussed” – I see name calling (homophobe), terms used (anti-gay), disparaging of the Mormon Church, disparaging remarks about Rick Warren, Barak Obama, and others. This is the wrong way to approach (IMHO) it. In contrast, when Elton John had his annual party for partners in NYC, he said the term marriage should not be used when asking for equal rights for same gender couples. He understood that it equated to acceptance from others and that would not be achieved in a short time period. He suggested domestic partners receive the same rights without incorporating the word marriage into the equasion. Few people have reported this but will report all the things Rick Warren says (basically the same as Elton John) and spin it into a negative and adversary position.
Ann,
And I, personally, don’t care what some Evangelicals choose to say or believe about gay marriage – as long as gay people can get married. I agree that not everyone has to believe that gay marriage is right, as long as gay people get the same rights as everyone else. And they slowly but surely are.
Ann,
No one has to accept or believe that the sky is blue either but it is – LOL! They can stay in denial all they like, but gay people ARE getting married all over the country – the definition has changed. It IS a reality. How evangelicals choose to deal with that reality will be interesting
Great article in the LA Times on how Jerry Brown, the CA state Attorney General is asking the state supreme court to “void the gay marriage ban”.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage20-2008dec20,0,3628665.story
Jayhuck,
My point is that the definition might have changed for you and others but not for the majority of people. No one has to deal with or accept what you call a reality just because you want them to.
Ann,
I don’t see that at all – anytime I hear anyone talk about gay marriage, it is with the idea that it is a right that should be extended to all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of the US. I don’t ever hear gay people say that it is something that everyone should accept on moral grounds – it is always discussed within the context of equal rights
Ann,
My POINT is that – and let me repeat myself – the definition of marriage has changed. Evangelicals are going to have to figure out how to live with that reality.
Jayhuck,
No one has to learn how to deal with it – no one. You cannot tell people what to believe or how to think. To quote Patrick – nice try at sophistry but it doesn’t wash. When you force acceptability onto another, you lose. This has been the main reason there is so much resistance to same gender marriage – it is presented as an issue that everyone should or must accept morally rather than presented as an equal right. People get hung up in resisting the coercion and it monopolizes the real issue of equal rights.
Anyway – My point about marriage and religion above is that the definition of marriage has ALREADY changed – its not some future possibility anymore, it is a reality – one that some Evangelicals are simply going to have to learn to deal with.
LOL – Thank you Patrick 😉
Oh my goodness! Rick Warren has some theologies that I disagree with all the way. He would not be a good pastor for me. I’m not complaining. Gay people are refusing to see that not everyone wants to or should have to agree with Rick Warren and that it is still okay if he is at the inauguration and give the prayer. BFD.
I doubt anyone could fill the shoes of accomodating every religious or secular view of any american.
If we see what we want to – then you are just as guilty – and your comment about him being a good man can only be interpreted the same way.
Patrick,
Yes, I see what you mean.
But, I never said RW was not a good man or a bad man. I said comparing homosexuality to pedophila (or as David would have it Adult/child marriage) is a gross, inaccurate and offensive comparison.
I honestly do not think he was making the comparison you mention. From how I interpreted it, he was saying any deviation from marriage as we know it can open up the possibility to any kind of union taking place and being called a marriage.
And thus the gay community is not pleased about him doing the invocation.
I thought they were not pleased with his position on Proposition 8.
If we see what we want to – then you are just as guilty – and your comment about him being a good man can only be interpreted the same way.
But, I never said RW was not a good man or a bad man. I said comparing homosexuality to pedophila (or as David would have it Adult/child marriage) is a gross, inaccurate and offensive comparison.
And thus the gay community is not pleased about him doing the invocation.
Patrick,
We see and believe only what we want to. I did not get that from what Rick Warren said. If he agreed with everything you wanted, then he would be looked at with a telescope – because he didn’t say exactly what you wanted to promote what you wanted, you look at him under a microscope hoping to find meaning to his words that will support an anti-gay mind set – nothing could be further than the truth. You will find what you look for and I am sorry you want to find such a negative thing about such a good man.
A marriage between two persons (or other) implies sexual relations. Therefore a child/adult marriage is by definition pederast.
Nice try at sophistry there David – but it doesn’t wash.
Rick Warren invited both John McCain and Barak Obama to a televised “Civil Forum” in which he asked both exactly the same questions and allowed them to elaborate on their answers and express their thoughts in a comfortable and casual way. There was absolutely no bias to either candidate or cause or question when it came to issues. Rick Warren is entitled to his personal view and to share it which whoever he chooses. It is interesting to see the responses when his choices do not agree exactly and to the liking of others. Reminds me of a stock – you like it when it goes up but hate it when it goes down.
Regarding Jayhuck and semantics…
the conversion of an “adult marrying a child” to “Pedophilia” is semantics.
Now it appears you draw comfort that RW is not on Obama’s staff…
That never was the topic of the article.
Obama invited RW to speak and the HRC and others then attacked due to twisting his words into hate and distorting proposition 8….
Just mean.
He says he is opposed to marriage, but I believe he will champion civil unions – although the difference between the two is often simply semantics if you ask me. I think we might see further hate crime type legislation as well.
I believe we will see a good deal of advancement of equal rights for gay people in this new administration!
Jayhuck,
What advancement of equal rights, other than marriage, are you referring to? He is opposed to same gender marriage.
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that REGARDLESS of RWs feelings toward gay people, he is ONLY invited to the inauguration – he is not a part of Obama’s staff, and Obama, thankfully, does not share his many of his views. I believe we will see a good deal of advancement of equal rights for gay people in this new administration! 🙂
Ooops – double negative? – Why SHOULD the state not bestow benefits…?
David Blakeslee,,
There’s a problem with the “definition of marriage” argument as it is used by most religious people though. Marriage, as I am assuming most religious people understand the term, is bestowed by the church – and there are plenty of churches already “marrying” same-sex people – the laws do not forbid this – nor do they forbid gay people from applying the term married/marriage to their unions – In fact, I think gay couples should start using the term more – I think this would go far to changing attitudes.
The issue is with the SECULAR state bestowing benefits upon a couple. Now why shouldn’t the secular state not bestow benefits on many gay couples???
Warren,
So gay people just need to be thankful Rick doesn’t see a need to put them in prison??? Good grief!
Non- belief is the new religion. If only those who talk about superstition could see that. Call my God whatever you want. It is what it is – a belief that is not shared by all. But name calling a believer as supoerstitious is just loosely resembling bullying in this forum.
Lynn David,
Who’s reality?
Gays just don’t like people who disagree with their lifestyle. I happen to not agree with drunk people, adulterous people, Muslims, Buddhists etc… But they are not getting upset. Some of those groups are universally looked down upon and some of them have a different religion. I am betting that the whole gay thing after it has finally slpit the church comes down to a religious issue. Some say it is okay and others do not.
Yes, a religious person like Rick Warren will compare homosexuality to any sexual sin. In his faith, it is sinful. In his faith so is not being a believer in Christ.
Gays disagree. Okay.
But the complaint is getting over used and tired especially when they are being represented during the event.
Oh, I have this silly idea that people like he and Blakeslee should get there heads wrapped around a little bit of reality rather than the supercilious superstitions with which they are enamored.
Another hate-filled comment by Rick Warren earlier in the interview:
“BELIEFNET: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family – divorce or gay marriage?
WARREN: [laughs] That’s a no brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it. ”
This site has an opportunity to demand a reasonable threshold for outrage…to set the standard higher and not be a “tool” (I mean this in every sense of the word) of the Politics of Outrage.
And Warren, based up the article I read…Rick Warren does not compare gay marriage to pedophilia per se….and some Christians are Freakin’ crazy as loons. I am not offended when they are pointed out to me.
Patrick…
Was Rick Warren saying the gays and lesbians is the same as pedophiles marrying children?
Or was he saying there are standards of exclusion for marriage, many in fact, one of which is the couple must be the opposite gender?
Here is the quote: “The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”
Now…lets acknowledge that pedophilia is one interpretation of one of the things that Warren Opposes. But pedophilia is adult erotic pleasure derived from contact with prepubescent children…Warren is not talking about pedophilia per se, but adults marrying minors as one exclusion, supported by a secular government limiting marriage.
The politics of outrage converts marrying a child to pedophilia (two different things) and then shouts the “conversion” loudly in outrage…
Outrage, manufactured, used to marginalize through a narrow interpretation.
You can’t even defend an argument with valid examples already recognized by law without risking hyperbolic misinterpretation and OUTRAGE!
Everybody plays this stupid game and it is harmful…and unnecessary.
Well Rick Warren could always apologize to the glbt community for his remarks that draw an equivalence between gay couples and pedophiles – and further explain what his point was by making that comparison.
But I kind of doubt we will see that.
Because afterall no analogies are ‘perfect’ as David Blakeslee said – so let just this one stand (even if it is a ridiculous moral comparison – by any ethical standard).
At least Dr. Throckmorton is honest enough to admit he would be offended by someone mocking his religious views. Why is it so hard for people to understand that this man speaking at the inauguration is as offensive to glbt persons.
Public figures as pin cushions….isn’t it fun!
Lynn David,
Why does Rick Warren “have” to do any of this? Does he also have to curtail his vital work with AIDS just to pacify other people who don’t agree with his work in this area? No one “has” to do anything just to please another’s point of view if they do not feel the same way.
David Blakeslee,
I think you nailed it regarding arguments and how they are used to accommodate any particular perspective at any given time – very well said.
If the issue of acceptance regarding same gender relationships, commited or otherwise, was taken off the table, the concept of equal rights would not be in as much contention. It is in the asking or requiring that same gender relationships be accepted that the battle of equal rights gets lost. Most people are fighting just to be right rather than doing the right thing. If an individual has had multiple marriages and divorces, they might not get acceptance from others when marrying again, however, they still have the right to marry. I have a very strong personal perspective about marriage, however, I cannot allow that view to impede someone else or the law from their/that perspective of an equal right.
Oh yeah….
People after the fact are judged by whether they were appropriately outraged over these “gnat comments.”
If you reacted with outrage…then you were good.
If you did not, then you are forever labeled as a co-conspirator.
Ultimately you are condemned for not sharing in the outrage over distorted and magnified interpretation of the gnat comment.
Effective, yes.
Helpful to a dialogue in a democracy…absolutely not.
Helpful for demagoguery…you bet.
Christ condemned the pharisees for “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.”
The politics of outrage, as practiced by everyone, is all about puking over little comments while overlooking huge inconsistencies.
I can’t help but feel that all the reactivity is meant to exhaust one’s opponent.
Very troubling…not about listening or connecting.
It is about silencing.
Over gnats.
I might be a bit outraged if critics called my religion psychosis because I believe in things I can’t see and so do psychotics. So I can understand the concerns of leaving an argument unchallenged. However, I do agree that the Politics of Outrage interfere with civil discourse and wrongly substitute for real logical analysis.
Clearly Warren treats homosexuals different than he would treat a pedophile and so whatever argument he makes, it does not translate into comparable responses from him.
There are flaws with every argument, Warren. That is the point.
You are not allowed to make the argument and when you bolster your argument with “Moral Equivalents” (that don’t quite fit); then the outrage game is on full display.
30 years ago, some gay activists openly derided the concept of marriage;
30 years ago, some in the women’s liberation movement openly derided the concept of marriage.
Marriage is a religious tenet, with religious qualifications. To enforce those qualifications is not about hatred or bigotry (I think people project onto others what they feel themselves). If you want it, practice the principals associated with it. Otherwise, create a secular model and call it what you want.
Why do those who previously derided marriage now crave it so.
Why do those who scorned fidelity, sexual purity, and monogomy in a previous generation now demand a religious rite that requires those behaviors as a form of affirmation?
For the record, I do not agree that Rick Warren is correct in his parallel to marrying a child. He is making a definitional argument not an effect argument but nonetheless, it is a poor argument given that children cannot consent and an adult can consent.
As homosexuality becomes normalized, any attempts to compare it with any other disrespected behavior will be considered “mean spirited.”
It is a no win situation…even to call it sin.
That is how the outrage game is played…Not granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians is now a form of discrimination and hate….
Those who have complained of being victims of shame and hate and name-calling, inflict the weapon they despise readily on those they disagree with; while claiming moral superiority.
Secular Fundamentalist Pharisees.
Just wierd.
You know, I cannot think of any other group that you could make the kind of comments that Rick Warren made about gay people – and still be choosen for this event.
It isn’t that Rick Warren hasn’t done good – but to say something as hateful as comparing loving same sex relationships to child sexual abuse is obscene.
If you can’t condemn homosexuality, on what basis can you condemn incest, or bestiality for that matter. They’re just more Christian taboos, right? I wanna marry my dog, who the $#@! are you to impose your values on me?
Yeah… in an interview on Beliefnet, Warren gave the tried and true answer of he has friends who are gay. Then he went on to say….
How can you be for “full equal rights” and not for all families being protected under the laws concerning marriage in this country? Especially when you have just compared what would be a full equal right of marriage for a family begun by a gay or lesbian couple to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. In short, he just used the slippery slope argument.
Then there is his insistence upon a right to free speech in the pulpit that makes no sense. And his appeal to a discussion in a civil manner, just after having taken away the rights of families to be protected in marriages.
And his idea of the “5,000-year definition of marriage” which holds little validity except as a call upon a literalist viewpoint of the Bible. But it is not true. There have been in many cultures an allowance for persons of the same-gender to be joined. And here in America the native peoples allowed their two-spirit people to wed persons of their same gender.
Rick Warren, like many people opposed to real gay rights, needs to get his facts in order, but he needs to go further and rectify his own thinking on civil rights.
Anyway – Let me just say again I’m GLAD this is just for the inauguration!!! 🙂
RW seems to have – how can you put it – compassionate tendencies??? 🙂
I’m not disputing that his AIDS work is good and compassionate – but his words for the gay community are anything BUT compassionate, and show a great deal of ignorance about a community he seems to be ok maligning but not learning much about. THAT is not compassion!
This is social compassion:
I’m not THAT worried by the Rick Warren invitation – Obama has shown himself to be very gay friendly and I think we are going to see positive steps towards equal rights during this administration. Obama has already appointed a few openly gay people to posts in his new administration – THAT, I admire 🙂
Rick Warren brings together social compassion – you ARE kidding, right Warren? I’m not sure how you define social compassion, but his support of prop 8 and his words leveled at the gay community are hardly compassionate – not to mention completely uninformed. I’m simply thankful this is just for the inauguration!!!
Isn’t there a GLBT band playing in the inauguration parade??
Gays are going to have to learn that diversity means diversity.
We are not all going to agree on how God sees things.