An overblown issue. Calm down, people.
Do you remember the preacher who gave the invocation at the Clinton inaugural? And the influence exerted by that individual over the ensuing eight years? I don't either. In fact, that person wasn't even mentioned in the WaPo story of the Clinton swearing in.
I've seen no evidence that Obama is changing his mind about any of his pro-gay positions. And although I don't care for Rick Warren's positions on gay people, he probably doesn't care for my positions on gay people.
Frankly, I don't care which witch doctor casts his spells over the inauguration (why is a religious element a part of a matter of state, anyway?). I care about the policy positions of the guy being sworn in. And although I think we need to be taking nothing for granted and hold Obama's feet to the fire, this whole controversy is a sideshow. Not the main event.
6 comments:
Can't entirely agree with you. Yes, too much has been made of this pick, and it's delighting the tighty-righties, who get to stick all kinds of anecdotes about those uppity fags pissing and moaning about this in addition to not getting their way on gay marriage.
But this isn't just something to be shrugged off--in exactly the same way the invitation to Donnie McClurkin wasn't something to be shrugged off. The thing is, you never believed me when I said that was an indication of how Obama really felt about gays. I think that's a harder belief to sustain in the light of the Warren invitation, which was also Obama's decision.
And no, I am not happy that I get to say I told you so.
FREE On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
Told me so about what? Obama has reaffirmed his opposition to Warren's anti-gay positions.
There's reaffirming and there's reaffirming. And, as with the McClurkin affair, I continue to maintain that actions speak louder than words. If Obama were so concerned about Warren's anti-gay views, he wouldn't have issued an invitation to him to offer the invocation at his inauguration. That he issued the invitation, and then issued a wishy-washy declaration of opposition to his views is, shall we say, less than convincing.
You bet. Actions speak louder. Policy promises are more important than prayers. So let's make sure that Obama delivers on those promises. BTW, where's the praise for choosing Rev. Lowrey, who is more progressive than Obama on LGBT issues, to deliver the benediction?
And I wouldn't call Obama's statement where he says he will be a "fierce" advocate for equality for gay Americans "wishy-washy."
Let us smartly and passionately make our case for our issues on the public stage, let us fight bigotry cowering as policy. But demanding the public stage not include anyone we disagree with is, well, not grown up. Are we so unsure of ourselves that we can't stand to share the National Mall with someone just because he doesn't like us? "Mommy! Barry invited Ricky to the party! So I'm not going!!"
And why did Obama make that statement (there's that word again) about being such a "fierce advocate" (as if!)? Because people were pissed at him for putting a homophobic, misogynistic, anti-choice bigot on the nation's stage.
I'd like it a lot more if Obama remembered his fierce advocacy for gay rights before he did something to piss off the gay community. Maybe then he wouldn't piss off the gay community quite so often.
One bigot on that stage is exactly one bigot too many. You don't wash that taint away by inviting a pro-gay-rights pastor to provide a false sense of balance.
Post a Comment