NBC's Curry repeated Warren falsehood about Prop 8 without noting it's false
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Ann Curry stated of Rev. Rick Warren, "One of the issues he said is that, you know, he cannot -- he was concerned that there would be an infringement on his freedom to speak about it, because if, in fact, he came out -- he was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage." In fact, neither Proposition 8 -- which sought to overturn the California Supreme Court's ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry -- nor the Supreme Court decision itself had anything to do with members of the clergy.
Previewing her Dateline NBC interview with Rev. Rick Warren during the December 18 edition of MSNBC Live, Dateline co-host Ann Curry stated, "One of the issues he said is that, you know, he cannot -- he was concerned that there would be an infringement on his freedom to speak about it, because if, in fact, he came out -- he was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage." Curry's reporting of Warren's claim echoed the falsehood advanced by critics of same-sex marriage that if the California ballot initiative Proposition 8 had not passed, members of the clergy could have been restricted in what they could say in the pulpit and could have been forced to perform same-sex marriages. Neither is true. Proposition 8, and the state Supreme Court decision it sought to overturn, had nothing to do with members of the clergy and did not address their actions or speech in any way.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the California Supreme Court's ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples." The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
From the noon ET hour of MSNBC Live on December 18:
CONTESSA BREWER (anchor): When the pastor in a religious church gets up and stands up and says, "My religion does not permit the marriage between two people of the same gender," that's what happens in that church, and he's the head of that church and he has every right to say that.
But when he comes out and supports Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, he's talking about secular marriage, he's taking about marriage that happens without the sanction necessarily of any church, that happens in a government setting. Does he see any difference between those two?
I mean, he was coming out against a government proposition, not something that happens within the walls of his own congregation.
CURRY: It's interesting. You know, one of the answers he has to that is that the pro -- the idea of gay marriage was so well-funded in terms of, groups had come forth and had basically said, you know, "We're gonna fund the fight against this ban," that he felt that it was his responsibility to come out and say, "Wait a minute. We need to also -- we need to create a balance here so that people hear both sides."
One of the issues he said is that, you know, he cannot -- he was concerned that there would be an infringement on his freedom to speak about it, because if, in fact, he came out -- he was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage.
So, you know, we go into all of that. But also we talk about, you know, him as a man in our interview on Dateline, and he talks about how he himself has sinned and how -- some of his own frailties. And I think that people will see a multifaceted view of Rick Warren.
God forbid we ever have anything but the most respectful, non-argumentative discussions with the morally bankrupt men of the cloth. Clearly, if you say you're a christian minister, or that jesus is your favorite philosopher (sic), than your views should be shown deep respect and not ridiculed for it's rank hypocrisy and overt insincerity.
I was disappointed at first in Obama's choice of Warren to speak at the inauguration, but Tom Hartman had a pretty good take on it today that I couldn't really argue with. It's really in step with Obama's promises to interact with those outside of his comfort zone, quite a "change" from the past eight years. Maybe people like Warren are capable of learning, only way to find out is to give them a chance. He's got some influence.
Col. I had the same feelings as you but after listening to the President Elect today, lets give it a try.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_minister
Yeah, and all you gay supporters of mine, get lost, too.
I'm sure Warren has nothing to offer in his own right. He's just there to be learned by the geniuses all around.
Exactly, Bruce. That's what I'm saying.
Kidding aside, I was really referring to a specific area. Having Prop. 8 pass here in CA., Obama's statements of personal disapproval of gay marriage, there have been some disappointments in this most recent frontier of civil rights.
I first saw the pick of Warren as a speaker as just another twist of the knife, and saw Obama as either pandering to the religious conservatives, or moving away from some of the more progressive principles that I'd seen in his past record, and that I liked about him.
Sorry if that sounded too condescending, the learning part, but I just have trouble even understanding the mentality that sees withholding civil rights from one group as protecting those of a second group who would be unaffected. I'll admit to being very closed -minded on this subject, I've heard every argument from the anti-gay side, and I don't see anything worth learning there.
And if I hear "re-defining marriage" too many more times. I'm going to go berserk. Really, off the deep end bananas.
Thanks for the clarification.
Warren did write a book that sold 20 million copies. He's completely mainstream despite many peoples opposition to his position on gay marriage. I don't think he should be defined in total because of his position on this one issue.
he's actually not that mainstream. he's against abortion rights and stem cell research. i really could understand when obama spoke at his church, because he claimed he was "reaching out to the other side". but the "other side" is what you ran against. so when he picks this person to have what can be considered in no other way except as a position of honor, that's not just listening to another view. it would have been like clinton having jerry falwell.
i'd like to defend the warren pick here. unfortunately, i can't.
No one can-- don't even try. It's Sister Soulja time.
My issue with this pick is that Warren not merely promoted Proposition 8, but he used Obama's name while doing it, citing him as an opponent of gay marriage.
If that's as dishonest as we're led to believe it is, then it's awfully odd to give that person recognition. It would seem to validate Warren's claims. Hartman may have a point, but it's pretty strange to either not consider the downside here, or to think that the reasons he's citing trumps those concerns. I don't see how this passes a pro/con test.
It's really in step with Obama's promises to interact with those outside of his comfort zone, quite a "change" from the past eight years.
Hartmann's totally wrong, as he often is.
It's one thing to "interact," it's another thing to validate and reward. That's exactly what Obama did in picking Warren. It's his Sister Soulja moment, and it won't be his last.
In other words, Obama to Gays: get lost.
As Digby put it a few weeks ago, the Repubs lose big, so of course, it's time for the Dems to snuggle into them and cast-off those pesky liberals. But if O' thinks he's going to ingratiate himself with the Right over this, he's mighty mistaken. If anything, it will only gain him only some Clinton-like bad karma.
A question to the Obama fans and Hillary haters: would Hillary have ever picked Warren if she were the President-elect?
Of course not. She has more sense.
"Obama to Gays: get lost"
A little early to be making that assesment don't you think?
Obama chooses one guy to lead a prayer and suddenly he doesn't care about gays? Couldn't this be seen as guilt by association? If you're disappointed fine. But let's wait until Obama gets into office before we make such extreme assumptions.
how does asking someone who does not believe what you believe in (either you support gay rights/marriage or you dont) jive with dealing outside of comfort zone?
It is the same thing as appointing Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary.
"Obama's promises to interact with those outside of his comfort zone" - Interact is one thing, give them more prominence, appoint them to some post is a different thing altogether.
That's basically my take on it also. If they want to try to find some common ground on issues, then there's another time and place for that. It's not quite the same degree of importance as cabinet posts, but there's a symbolism involved with these things that is too significant to brush off. At best, Obama is forgetting that appearances are very important in this business, and he's creating the appearance of being sympathetic to homophobes.
And just wait until the boos and the banners come out during the inauguration. Gay activists are going to go crazy against Warren that day.
I suspect that Obama realized this today-- this very vocal opposition-- and he and his people just know that something like this is going to marr the festivities. It was major FUBAR time for them to have allowed Warren to be part of this thing-- just the protests alone are enough to put the kibosh on it.
Who wasn't thinking over there? Or are they going to squelch the inevitable protesters? That'll be fun to see...
With the attention given to Rick Warren, you'd think he was the only minister speaking at Obama's inauguration.
He's not, Rev. Joseph Lowery, will also speak at Obama's inauguration. The same Rev. Joseph Lowery who asked , Why care about something like same-sex marriage when millions of your own children are dying in starvation and poverty within the slums? He said that if you are one who says, “I believe in human rights for all people, except for…” then you really don’t believe in human rights or equality. To believe in equality and human rights is to believe in it for all people. If you don’t, then you are, according to the Reverend, creating an oxymoron and certainly not standing up for equality. He said no matter what race, color, religion, creed, sex, gender OR sexual orientation… we are all deserving of human rights, civil rights and equality. The Reverend said he “sometimes wonders about people who are so homophobic.” Quoting Hamlet, he said, “Me thinks you doth protest too much.” He continued, “If a person is a secure in their sexuality, they have no time to waste on sneaking around to see what you are doing.” s for same sex marriage and he's giving.
I understand the anger at some of the things Warren has said but I don't understand giving more media attention to his ignorance. Can you imagine if the media was focused on what Rev. Lowery said instead of Rick Warren's ignorance?
Gay folks are welcome to boo and bring as many banners of protest as they like, but for me, and I imagine a lot of other folks, this inauguration is about a lot more than Warren's ignorance.
Couldn't Obama find someone else with views similar to Lowery? Surely there's another one out there somewhere.
How is one supposed to express anger over the Warren pick without giving more attention to it?
Should Obama's actions be overlooked just because there are other people there, and it's about more than just Warren?
Couldn't Obama find someone else with views similar to Lowery? Surely there's another one out there somewhere.
Why should he?
I read somewhere that Warren and Obama are friends who meet at World Aids Day back in 2006. If Obama wants his friend to speak at his inauguration, I have no problem with that.
For me, this inauguration is about a lot more than Rick Warren. And while I disagree with Warren's views on homosexuality and abortion, I appreciate his support for ending poverty and aids.
How is one supposed to express anger over the Warren pick without giving more attention to it?
How well is this public expression of anger working?
Giving attention to Warren's ignorance serves no purpose, IMO. It allows the media to repeat Warrens comments on gay marriage over and over again.
Requesting a private meeting with Obama to express displeasure seems smarter. Drawing public attention to the opinions and views of Rev. Lowery seems smarter. I know I'd rather see Rev. Lowery views on the news, 24/7, than Rick Warren.
Should Obama's actions be overlooked just because there are other people there, and it's about more than just Warren?
Obama actions?
Obama choose the two ministers he wanted to speak at his inauguration. Even thought I disagree with Warrens views on some issues, I find him much more acceptable than Billy Graham.
If Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration is the most important issue to you, knock yourself out. Protest all you want.
But for me, Warren's blip on the map. I'm not protesting nor am I paying much attention to the protest. January 20, 2009 is about a lot more than Rick Warren, for me.
"Why should he?"
Because Warren is a homophobe.
"I read somewhere that Warren and Obama are friends who meet at World Aids Day back in 2006. If Obama wants his friend to speak at his inauguration, I have no problem with that."
As I noted before, Warren used Obama's name in his ads for Proposition 8, suggesting Obama supported it. If that's dishonest, doesn't that sort of trump a previous friendship? It sure seems like it should, and instead it creates the impression that Obama does actually agree with him.
"For me, this inauguration is about a lot more than Rick Warren. And while I disagree with Warren's views on homosexuality and abortion, I appreciate his support for ending poverty and aids."
Terrific, but again there are surely other people out there who support the ending of poverty and AIDS as well.
"How well is this public expression of anger working?"
Is that really supposed to be a determining factor in whether people object to something or not? What is your point here?
"Giving attention to Warren's ignorance serves no purpose, IMO. It allows the media to repeat Warrens comments on gay marriage over and over again."
An expression of discontent serves the purpose of expressing that discontent. That's sort of important to the premise of Democracy. Should people have not protested the Iraq war because it didn't change Bush's viewpoint? And if Warren's comments are offensive, then that just underscores the point that Obama shouldn't have picked someone who makes those sorts of comments. They're Warren's fault, not the media's.
"Requesting a private meeting with Obama to express displeasure seems smarter. Drawing public attention to the opinions and views of Rev. Lowery seems smarter. I know I'd rather see Rev. Lowery views on the news, 24/7, than Rick Warren."
Who are we talking about? Your average American is supposed to request a private meeting with the President-Elect? And citing Lowery doesn't balance out or erase Warren's history.
"Obama actions?"
Yes, Obama's actions. This phrase should be understandable, especially since you say "Obama choose" right afterwards.
"Obama choose the two ministers he wanted to speak at his inauguration. Even thought I disagree with Warrens views on some issues, I find him much more acceptable than Billy Graham."
I find him more acceptable than James Dobson, too. So what? Was Graham the only other option available?
"If Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration is the most important issue to you, knock yourself out. Protest all you want."
Strawman. It creates a negative perception whether it's the most important issue or not. You could brush off any concern with the same excuse.
"But for me, Warren's blip on the map. I'm not protesting nor am I paying much attention to the protest. January 20, 2009 is about a lot more than Rick Warren, for me."
In other words, "yes". It doesn't matter who Obama were to choose, because it's about more than that particular person.
"Giving attention to Warren's ignorance serves no purpose, IMO. It allows the media to repeat Warrens comments on gay marriage over and over again."
Should they not?
"With the attention given to Rick Warren, you'd think he was the only minister speaking at Obama's inauguration."
Why is there even one minster speaking? Is it in the Constitution?
"If Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration is the most important issue to you, knock yourself out. Protest all you want."
No. The issue is that Obama is asking him to speak.
"But for me, Warren's blip on the map. I'm not protesting nor am I paying much attention to the protest. January 20, 2009 is about a lot more than Rick Warren, for me."
You are entitled to your feelings bit this is what caused the last 8 years, IMO.
The last 8 years have been you either agree or bye, bye, your gone.
THAT is not what I'm saying.
I'm not trying to silence those who choose to protest against Rick Warren. But I object to those protesting, who say that Obama's invitation to Warren means Obama is telling gays to get lost. That Obama's invitation to Warren means Obama is not committed to equality for gays.
It appears conservatives on the right don't want Warren speaking either. They see Warren speaking as giving a stamp of approval of Obama, even though Obama supports abortion.
This inauguration is for all Americans, even those you disagree with.
The fact that Obama is allowing someone he disagrees with to speak is what makes him different from those folks who ran the country for 8 years. I don't have a problem with that.
And hasn't BHO said that we will all disagree on some issues and that we should be able to disagree without be disagreeable? I personally think this could be an uniting moment, knowing there are people disagreeing with the choice. It is not the end of the world, or even the US, folks.
Isn't lying about someone's position to serve your own goals somewhat "disagreeable"?
My4, maybe I'm missing something. I know Warren is going to speak at the swearing in, but is he being given some sort of position in the Obama administration? If he is, I didn't know that.
I've heard some more quotes from Warren that I either didn't hear before or forgot(comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or incest) and it's making me a lot less forgiving of this move.
Maybe I've just realized that I'm "out of touch with mainstream America" enough that I let some things roll off my back. I'm straight, but never married and no kids, and I'm sometimes treated like enough of a deviant, or an "incomplete", that I can't even imagine the crap gay people have to put up with.
That's why I can't even comprehend the wingnuts who keep throwing out the "lifestyle choice" argument. Why? for all of the perks?
If I haven't made it clear, I think it's insane that peoples' rights are limited by a powerful & loud religious majority in this country. I think a lot of stuff is insane, but I voted for Obama as the less conservative of two choices, and the obvious choice for the sake of the country.
I'd love it if there was a viable candidate who agreed with me on everything. Unfortunately, I'm painfully aware that I live in a country where, according to a survey I saw recently, something like 40% of my fellow American voters believe in angels.I'm realistic.
Warren will be given a minor part in the inauguration festivities. It is certainly not like BHO is appointing him the "Pastor of the Nation." The man, actually both of them, are entitled to their views and as long as they are not creating bodily harm to anyone, what's the big deal?
Symbolism.
Everyone's entitled to their views, but if you supposedly stand up for the gay community you recognize that all viewpoints do not have the same nature. People who say that homosexuality can be cured are bigots. If it were just a matter of political viewpoints, you can validate someone's opposing views without agreeing with them. With matters of bigotry, it's not the same. If you single out someone with these sort of opinions, you validate them, and you make bigotry an acceptable point of view.
To clarify that, I'm not saying that Obama has to agree with Warren, just that he's making homophobia into something you merely agree or disagree with, as if it was a respectable viewpoint.
Colonel,
He is not being given a Cabinet position. I was only trying to draw an anology.
I grew up (a non-Christian), in India till I was 25, not even aware that there could be multiple sexual orientations. However, having lived in the US since 1992, I have begun thinking beyond me. And this is where Obama's unfortunate choice comes in. If what Rev. or Pastor said of gays is true, he is either too religiuously or politically inclined. It could be true that he and Obama agree on everything else.
You cannot be inclusive by excluding even one thing. I do not even know what a Pastor does at a swearing in ceremony. Except that Obama's choice disturbs me. Of all the Christians in this country, was this Warren guy the most inclusive Obama could find to do whatever is done at inauguration?
I am sure there are better religious, Christian, all inclusive people than Warren. That was my point.
basically he will just give a lot of the usual religious blather, quoting scripture [all that stuff that men made up thousands of years ago to explain a big scary world] and that will be it. i doubt he will say anything controversial. but i agree with you, because as i said above, this is mainly an honorary position. but why give the "honor" to someone who is not in line with your supposed views and who many of the people who supported you do not like or trust. how many people in warren's church voted for obama? certainly very few. obama could have found someone else and he made a point of giving legitimacy to a person a lot of his voters feel is against them. if obama feels he needs dialogue, this was not the way to do it.
"how does asking someone who does not believe what you believe in (either you support gay rights/marriage or you dont) jive with dealing outside of comfort zone?"
However, Rick Warren's opposition to gay marriage is well within Obama's comfort zone. If you don't believe me, read what Obama said just about four months ago to Rick Warren.
"REV. WARREN: Okay. There's a lot more I'd like to ask on that, but we got 15 other questions here.
Define marriage.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a 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.
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)"
I get it, I can see that Obama is all for extending equal rights to gay couples, just not sacred rights as equals.
Anyway, whether or not Obama and Warren share common views of marriage is not really the point of this MMFA piece. It's the outright right wing propaganda lie that Curry is repeating. This hate crimes bill only concerns acts of physical violence. The woman is a liar, as is Warren. The bill states, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
I say Warren is another pig faced liar too, well because he has this to say about his opposition to prop 8, "any pastor could be considered doing hate speech . . . if he shared his views that homosexuality wasn't the most natural way for relationships."
Pack of lying media dogs.
Forgive me, support of prop 8.
I get it, I can see that Obama is all for extending equal rights to gay couples, just not sacred rights as equals.
Yup, and he's also trying to have it both ways on this issue-- I'm against them, but I'm for them.
Ironically, it's the Right who are going to nail him on this. I suspect it will be a major campaign issue in four years for them-- that Obama is against gay marriage except when he's for it in California!
Could very well be a problem for him in four years. I want it to be a problem for him so he's forced to give us a principled discussion on his beliefs.
You know, Roundy, this sentence really pi$$ed me off:
I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view.
I'm a gay man who voted for Obama. I never knew he said what I quoted above (from your post, Roundy). Although his statement wouldn't have changed my mind, I find it quite arrogant that straight folks, even President-Elect Obama say things like, "...I can afford those civil rights to others...".
To PE Obama: First of all, Barack, you don't afford rights to ANYONE. The constitution of the United States affords rights. You're a lawyer, for God's sake. Where in the U.S. constitution does it say that (1) You afford rights to others; and (2) Show me where the U.S. constitution holds a separate but equal clause - because that's what civil unions are - a nod to separate but equal.
Thanks for treating us gay folks equally, Barack. (sarcasm).
Please don't make me regret my vote. (Not as if I would have voted for McCain...)
You are ripping this thread to pieces. Good on you! I love your style and you raise THE salient point that the constitution affords rights.
Also, as an aside, I find it amusing that none of our usual conservative chowder-heads can muster a defense for this so called "mainstream" pastor's hateful lies about prop 8 or his lies about the local law enforcement hate crimes act of 2007. My guess is these punks just love their lying, anti-American right wing propagandists.
seeray,
Like this church?
http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
Can you point out their politicking?
I'm with Old Benjamin.
One would be at a loss to find any politicking or political advocacy of any kind at the link you provided.
Please clarify your point.
RayC, when you talk about churches not advocating for political issues, exactly who are you addressing? All the members of a church or the building itself? How about those church in the South that have allowed certain candidates to speak from their pulpit? Let's first set some parameters so that we can have a discussion. I don't necessarily think that any member of any church has to be apolitical as long as the building is not used for political reasons or whoever is speaking out is not speaking as a member of that church.
You're right - and I think that's the point. If churches are going to try to get involved in politics, even as much as hosting a politician from the pulpit, they should be taxed. As it stands now, I would assume that taxing churches for being involved in politics would be somehow unconstitutional. The reason being (and maybe this is backward logic - please set me straight if it is) is that taxing churches for being involved in politics is tacit permission for churches (religion) to play a part in (or be injected into) government, which is specifically banned by the constitution.
I say keep the churches out of politics. A fine for being involved in politics might be more suitable.
But what is Barak's opinion?
"Obama has said he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage but thinks the issue should be left to states to decide."
But he was against the ban in California, something that its state's citizens passed?
http://cbs5.com/local/obama.gay.marriage.2.761332.html
Of course you know that "The State (in this case the Cali Supreme Court)" had decided to allow gay marriage at the time of this interview. When the majority of voters decided to nulify other persons rights with passage of Prop 8, I don't think it vacated the court's decision.
elderfranklin,
But I thought he wanted the citizens of a state to decide? Unless of course the outcome is not what you wanted, then it's the state's courts that decide!
Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority or some such thing I think.
Night and Day...
Your post is as clear as a bell. The Media has indeed taken a powder when it comes to interviewing religious figures. ......Ratings, I suppose.
Ann Curry is just not up to the job.
Again...sheesh..
If it is a constitutional issue, which in this case it is, as the ballot measure sought to change the constitution, it needs to go in front of the state Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court would then render a decision whether or not such a measure is constitutional. Previously, it was found to be unconstitutional. Soon, it will be found unconstitutional again and stricken.
You wingnuts really don't care for the rule of law do you? You just want mob pandemonium. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
All the votes and ballot initiatives in the world are irrelevant if the state Supreme Court or SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional.
Thems the breaks.
If I could somehow get a majority of Americans to vote to deport proudconservative, would that make it okay?
I'm still fuzzy on how this is a constitutional issue or how the federal government should be involved in the first place. As a Republic, you would think each state had the right to impose it's will via the people. The big stickler with that is if a gay or lesbian couple decided to move to a state who's laws were different than the ones they were originally married, would their status change? As a conservative, I've always felt that marriage was a theological institution but to avoid all of the messy details of interstate migration, support issues upon divorce, the usual legal battles marriage often spawns, I'm afraid I have to relent and support the idea that gay and lesbian couples have the same right to misery as I do.
It becomes a Constitutional issue if, while imposing their will, the people of a state violate a Federal Constitutional Right or principle. The Federal Constitution trumps all State Constitutions and laws.
Part of the debate, of course, is whether or not Prop 8 violates a Constitutional Principle. I think it does, but it will eventually be hashed out in the Courts.
I'd vote to force proudconservative to have a sex change so he/she would be gay (this is assuming he/she isn't a closet case).
You don't need a sex change to be gay.
I know your comment is more sarcasm than anything, but it shows me that you possibly don't understand the real issue here.
But he was against the ban in California, something that its state's citizens passed?
It's only because of the complete ineptitude of the Republican campaign that they did not capitalize on this wierd distinction of Obama's. He can't have it both ways: either he's against gay marriage, or he is not.
And if he's against it, he has to be in favor of Prop. 8, because otherwise, it would be allowed by California. If he is not in favor, he's inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
Soon Obama's gonna get nailed on this, and then what will he do? Don't hold your breath, liberals and gays. You're gonna get Sister Soulja'd in the end.
"He can't have it both ways: either he's against gay marriage, or he is not...And if he's against it, he has to be in favor of Prop. 8, because otherwise, it would be allowed by California. If he is not in favor, he's inconsistent, if not hypocritical."
That's not true. You can oppose gay marriage and defer to the state Supreme Court at the same time. You can also have fail to support something and not object when people get it.
Then people are gonna say he's not really against gay marriage because he allows it. So what's he against then? Gay marriage? How?
I honestly think you're confusing "doesn't support" and "opposes". Note the quote Roundhouse graciously provided:
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
How can he be against it if he doesn't support a Constitutional amendment staking out his position? By your logic, it makes no sense.
There's a difference. I'm not defending Obama here, as I totally disagree with his position. But, I believe what he's getting at is that he does not support same-sex marriage, but he does support NOT putting a ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution. He believes that there's no reason to place a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the states have decided on the issue.
States rights, eh? Barack, are you moving to the Right on us?
Barbantio is correct, though you may be having trouble seeing it if you think in black and white.
See, it is possible to oppose something but still support the right of other people to participate in it. It's a very progressive position, actually. I oppose voting for Republicans, but I would never think of outlawing it for those who chose to do so. Does that make me inconsistent, if not hypocritical?
I oppose voting for Republicans, but I would never think of outlawing it for those who chose to do so.
But he's not just against it personally. He's against it, period. He doesn't want to allow it in statute. That's your mistake here.
He's not just musing about it. And then he tries to wiggle out of it all by saying that he doesn't believe in carving an exemption the way Prop 8 does.
So just how is he against it? He's obviously not against it very much, because if he were, he'd be against it so that his opposition had some meaning.
See guys, you don't get it. His position leaves him completely open to the charge of inconsistency and even hypocrisy.
And the big question is-- why is he against it in the first place? Just like the Warren selection, he's trying to have it both ways: 'I'm against it, but -- ahh-- I'm not going to do anything about it.' That's red meat for his critics.
It's just sophistry-- a phony construct with no meaning to it-- and eventually he's gonna get nailed on this kind of stuff. Like in January, when gay protests and banners interrupt his inauguration, and that's all the cameras will be focusing on.
But what is Barak's opinion?
"Obama has said he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage but thinks the issue should be left to states to decide."
But he was against the ban in California, something that its state's citizens passed?
Yup, he's against gay marriage-- except when he's for it in California.
That's his position-- and if the Republicans had been half-way competent this year they would have torn him apart over this inconsistency.
Also, Obama never said that states should decide this issue-- he said that states shouldn't use the initiative process to overturn this kind of court decision-- big difference.
Here's what's going to end up hanging him on this issue-- will he support a Federal amendment to ban gay marriage? To allow it? Why not? What's his position?
Stating that somehow, the denial of a segment of our society, muzzles Pastor Warren is absolutely incorrect! He can preach against it evrytime he is in his religious setting and there are no laws against it, however; when he brings it out into Public Policy that is when he, it, and all others go WRONG!
So, how does one differentiate between Pastor Warren on Sunday and Citizen Warren on Monday-Saturday? Or a member of his congregation who nods in agreement with his words on Sunday and then voices a like opinion is a public meeting during the week? How does one separate the "church" from the members of the "church'?
As Hillary Clinton once said last spring "Shame on you Barack Obama'. And allthough she was not talking about Rick Warren, I will user her words for this occasion. "Shame on you Barack Obama" Rick Warren is homophobic and should have no place at your inaguaration.
Maybe Obama is really serious about being a "Uniter not a Divider", unlike the Dipstick who has infested the White House for the past 8 years.
Then he's just naive, or a lying triangulator himself.
I'd much rather have had the honest Pastor Wright give the invocation, than this lying sack of crap.
And Ann Curry is of the species of worthless TV personality with no brains that we have been afflicted by for the past 30 years, at least, since Uncle Walter was retired. She FEELS everything in lieu of thinking.
Religious phobia...on full display.
A little help from the allpsych journal:
-- A persistent irrational fear of religion that the person feels compelled to avoid...a fear that goes beyond normal boundaries and the actual threat of danger. It produces reactions that are automatic and uncontrollable...taking over the person's thoughts. --
Yep, that pretty much describes what goes on here whenever the subject of religion arises...clinically producing rapid heart beats, shortness of breath, trembling and the overwhelming desire to escape religious thoughts.
Certainly this doesn't apply to everyone. Don't believe in God or christianity? No problem. I was raised a Methodist but have chosen not to participate in formal religion for over 30 years...so no religious zealotry here...but a belief in a higher being and that the basic christian tenets are a good thing.
For those that rationally disagree without the trappings of religious phobia...fair enough...dissenting opinions do not automatically qualify as phobic.
I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle...but I'm not homophobic about it. Why? Because I have no fear of interacting with homos...despite the belief that it is unnatural and the single biggest cause of spreading AIDS.
Civil Unions? Sure. Marriage? Nope.
Yep, that pretty much describes what goes on here whenever the subject of religion arises...clinically producing rapid heart beats, shortness of breath, trembling and the overwhelming desire to escape religious thoughts. - wesley
Would you be so kind as to indicate where this irrational fear is displayed? I don't see it anywhere in these discussions and don't recall any such fear shown on other religion-based topics.
I think Wesley's imagination runs a bit wild when he gets overstimulated.
So then you're not suffering from religious phobia, Col? Because according to Wesley and his cute little quote, that's what many of the posters here have been suffering from. But then, that would mean no matter WHO Obama picked to perform the invocation, you would have been mad as hell...since the individual would still be religious
See, I originally thought many were angry because of Warren's very strong stance on issues like gay marriage and abortion--which contradict what Obama has apparently stood for--not simply because he is religious. But perhaps my rapid heart beats, shortness of breath, and trembling caused me to misinterpret the motive.
Bill, if you look back over the years, I think you will find that any topic posted here by MMFA that includes religion will have a lot more participants in the discussion than the normal topic. I think this is what Wesley is referring to. The majority of those posters are very adamant in their position and (as I have done several times) have not let fact get in the way of emotion.
Is it irrational to oppose religious influence on public policy matters? I would think that quite clearly falls under "normal boundaries".
What a crock of crap.
As a gay man, I take offense at your post. Your suppositions are not based on fact, but innuendo, spread by the various institutions with whom you've chosen not to associate for the past 30+ years. Whether you think so or not, you've fallen victim to the very institution from which you thought you had escaped.
Go judge someone else. I don't live a 'homosexual' lifestyle. I go to work, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, etc. Nothing different from most heterosexuals.
You don't hear gay folks calling the way you live the 'heterosexual lifestyle', do you? Of course not. We're not hateful towards heterosexuals, but you are hateful towards us. You've proven by your own words that you have a distaste for homosexuals, that you are indeed homophobic. Your last paragraph and final sentence prove it.
Right, Wesley refers to "homos" and "queers", but he's perfectly tolerant.
Queers United recently hosted a forum debating the term "queer lifestyle".
The lead author posed this:
-- LGBTQ people are quick to be on the defensive when someone invokes the word "lifestyle" with regards to LGBTQ lives.. However, the question as to whether we live a "queer lifestyle" is legitimate debate --
Some agreed that they live a homosexual lifestyle...and others argued to your point. It's an interesting read.
You've probably already seen it...for those that haven't:
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-forum-do-we-have-gay-lifestyle.html
despite the belief that it is unnatural and the single biggest cause of spreading AIDS
Oh Wesley, this makes me very sad to hear this this type of homophobic hate. First AIDS is being spread rapidly in the world today not by homosexual sex but unprotected hetrosexual sex (Africa, Russia, Asia)
Second , two people how love eachother is not unnatural. You and Rick Warren belong in the same hatehole.
Jerk
who not how
Here are the facts for the U.S. according to the Center for Disease Control on Aug.08:
-- HIV Infection Higher Than Previously Known
According to the new surveillance system, approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006. This number is approximately 40% higher than CDC’s previous estimate of 40,000 new infections per year...
Male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 53% (28,700) [57% when those using drugs is included] of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that HIV incidence has been increasing steadily among gay and bisexual men since the early 1990s, confirming a trend suggested by other data showing increases in risk behavior, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and HIV diagnoses in this population. --
Male homosexuals account for about twice the amount of HIV infections vs. heterosexuals...and about 5 times more than drug users.
It's a deadly lifestyle.
Wes, I don't completely understand your stats, would take a little more time to study than I have this evening.
All lifestyles eventually are deadly, just that some cause death to occur at significantly greater rates (actuarily) than others. Your figures would suggest so and could be applied to other lifestyles also (drug/alcohol use, obesity, certain occupations, etc).
I agree Oscar...all lifestyles eventually produce death and at uneven rates. An obese, drug using, homosexual, fireman is at greater risk than a physically fit, non-drug using, heterosexual librarian. The combinations and assignments of risk are virtually infinite...my degree in rocketry science aside.
AIDS is about a risk that is transferrable to others...unlike one's occupation or obesity. Society sets rules about behaviors that can harm others. That's why we have traffic laws and restrict the right to drive by age...denying the right to drive to youngsters and oldsters...because of their demonstrated bad driving lifestyles.
I have said repeatedly that I don't support the banning of homosexual lifestyles. Conversely, I don't support those who blithely promote the gay lifestyle as simply another innocent way of living your life...without honestly facing its deadly consequences.
We all have bias' and go about our daily lives making choices based on them. That's how we pick our friends, choose what to have for lunch, what clothes to wear, and whether we go to the opera or a baseball game. Being biased is simply human nature.
Transcending race, gender, and age...it's more about what you do than who you are. And I'll freely admit I'm not as consistent in that philosphy as I could be. But I'll tell you this for nothing...I'd rather hang out with a homosexual who likes baseball than a heterosexual who likes opera.
Here's the CDC report.