Pajamas Media

37 Comments

1. Mark Epstein:

“It’s unfortunate that some gay activists (and their allies on the left) have let their disagreement with the prominent pastor on this one issue color their reaction to the president-elect’s choice. To be sure, had Warren expressed his support of Proposition 8 in the hateful tones of some of the proposition’s proponents, these activists would have a point.”

It is encouraging to read the word “some” in your post. Not everyone who opposes gay marriage are hate-filled, just as not everyone in the gay community reacted poorly to the passing of Proposition 8. Often the problem is the gay community’s liberal heterosexual supporters who are enraged at any disagreement with the liberal world view. That is why nearly all of my articles concerning the reaction to Proposition 8 includes the liberals and leftists who disingenuously use the support of gay marriage as another excuse to rabidly bash ideologic opponents.

The African American community is just as problematic. I agree with those who argue that minority civil rights are not akin to gay rights. However, the pastors who do support gay marriage are just as luke warm on other traditional biblical positions, which then begs the question concerning their commitment to their source document (the Bible).

Then there’s the behavior of the Farrakhans, Jeremiah Wrights, and Joseph Lowerys of the world…

Gay Rage Part VI: Terrorist Hypocrites of a Feather

Dec 22, 2008 - 2:37 am 2. Bob:

It’s always the same story with the left, regardless of the issue. They expect everyone to “reach out” to them; they have no interest in reaching out to others. To the left, bipartisanship means Republicans agreeing withe the Democrat agenda. It was fine when Rick Warren invited Sen. Obama to speak at his evangelical church even though they didn’t agree on all issues. But when the President-elect returns the favor by inviting Warren to give a prayer at the inauguration, that’s an unspeakable outrage. Even though he carried only 53.5% of the popular vote, Mr. Obama will be President of all the people, gay, straight, conservative and liberal. I didn’t support “The One” but am willing to cut him a little slack and hope that his presidency will be successful, and that our country will prosper while he’s at the helm of the ship of state.

Dec 22, 2008 - 4:09 am 3. syn:

The Left uses identity politics as a permanent pipeline for campaign funds-from Climate Change to Gay Marriage to Class warfare to Gender-bending, the Left keeps these identities aggrieved, angered and feeling hopeless in order to secure the money needed to obtain power.

Those who subscribe to the Democrat Party’s Slave Plantation are being played for fools by their illiberal Slave Masters who make promises they’ll never keep while sending their slaves back to the fields to slave labor for more campaign funds.

Vicious cycle.

Dec 22, 2008 - 5:03 am 4. Peg:

Nice column, Dan. Too bad that the more extreme leftists don’t appreciate that having someone like Warren speak actually furthers their cause. Although Warren isn’t pro-gay marriage, he absolutely is no hate monger.

Gay marriage will come about not when the radical left is convinced it is right. It will come about when more people in the middle and on the right get to know gay folks and appreciate that, in the meaningful ways, they are no different from straight people. Having “one of their own” like Warren appear at Obama’s inauguration furthers this.

Although people may want something desperately (and rightly so) – changes in culture do not happen overnight. A bit more patience and dignity – as MLK demonstrated for the black community – would help.

Dec 22, 2008 - 6:36 am 5. therealist:

We know how it is. If you even talk to someone who who doesn’t believe in their cause you’re a knuckle dragging bigot.

Dec 22, 2008 - 8:56 am 6. Michael Ejercito:

I wonder if they would have accepted Larry Elder giving the invocation speech.

Or would they have found some other problem with him.

Dec 22, 2008 - 9:43 am 7. Bugs:

I long ago ceased thinking of LGBT people as a victim class. In general, they seem to be doing rather well for themselves – always have, in fact. Frankly, they appear to be one of the wealthiest, most influential “minorities” in the country. So their emotional and lifestyle issues seem less important to me than the real problems confronting our country today. Certainly they are entitled to express their dismay at Obama’s choice of reverends. But pardon me if I don’t weep over its supposed “chilling effect” on the LGBT community.

Dec 22, 2008 - 9:57 am 8. Professor Guvinoff:

A classic case of projection. Nobody can accuse someone else as being a bigot more forcefully than another bigot can. Let’s not panic just because some high-speed rethorical projectiles are being thrown around in various directions. There is room for reason, too.

Dec 22, 2008 - 11:05 am 9. David Thomson:

I simply do not understand why gays should care about getting married. First of all, few actually do. And perhaps even fewer believe in monogamy. It seems like the majority of these individuals advocate “open marriage.” Marriage is, however, primarily about raising children. Religious belief has little to do with anything. A totally secular—and even atheistic argument can be made restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. Gay sex, whether we like it or not, does not result in bringing children into the world. The often ridiculed nuclear family is the best way to turn youths into productive citizens.

Dec 22, 2008 - 11:31 am 10. Another View:

I vehemently oppose any stance that Gay rights and civil rights of citizens are on the same page.

With that said unless someone can show me data that humans are evolving to be Asexual. I will never support gay marriage. I will fight with gays if they were attacked. But I will not accept it as natural. Sure it has gone on throughout history. But same sex couples can’t have children. They may do as they please but don’t allow children think that lifestyle is progressive for humanity. Some homosexuality is learned behavior. I actually think they all “choose”. Take religion out of the equation and you still have a square peg and a round hole.

Sex feels good so we reproduce.

Dec 22, 2008 - 12:52 pm 11. Paul_Unalaska:

Another View, rightly put.

I was happy to see the Prop 8 bill result as it had. For if it’d gone the other way, our religous institutions would’ve been strong armed to recognize these individuals. A domino effect, so to speak.

Dec 22, 2008 - 5:09 pm 12. Paul_Unalaska:

Though I disagree in the ‘choice’ of sexuality comment. More studies, strong evidence are suggesting otherwise.

Dec 22, 2008 - 5:11 pm 13. KW64:

Politicians should not be required to choose between traditional Christians and Gays. That is not part of their public servant requirement. They serve both communities and should be able to interact with both communities.

Dec 22, 2008 - 9:23 pm 14. Marauder:

Joe Solmonese thinks that Prop 8 is “the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years”? Not a chance. The death of Harvey Milk was a much greater loss to the gay community than Prop 8, which will probably end up overturned within seven years max.

Another View: Realizing that they’re gay is often a scary and emotionally wrenching experience for teenagers. Why would they choose to be gay? If they could choose, why wouldn’t they just choose to be straight and spare themselves the anguish?

Dec 23, 2008 - 4:09 am 15. Scott:

I’m another gay Republican who is not “outraged” by Rick Warren. The man supports civil unions, and that’s fine with me. Here in California, we already have domestic partnerships that are the same as “marriage” as far as the state is concerned. We have community property rights, inheritance, visitation, power of attorney, etc. “Marriage” would not have change this one whit.

I was amazed how many gay people I knew believed that if gay marriage happened in CA that it would automatically give gay couples federal marriage rights. They were unaware that our status would not have changed at all.

And a word to those above who insist we “choose” to be gay: Did you get up one morning and “decide” that you were heterosexual? Well, I didn’t get up one day and “decide” to be gay. It just IS.

Many of us are monogamous. I have been with my partner for just under 20 years.

Dec 23, 2008 - 8:51 am 16. Forrest:

I think the negative reaction to this is just an illustration of the trend we’re currently on. Instant information, and the desperate need for news organizations to attract viewers and readers means every negative voice can and will be heard.

Personally I don’t see why gay marriage is a bad thing. In my mind, it’s an equal-but-separate kind of thing. I thought we’ve already decided that wasn’t acceptable? But to piss and moan about a selection of a specific pastor to perform the invocation at the inauguration…it’s not like Obama made him Assistant to the President for Gay and Lesbian Rights.

Obama has expressed his desire to bring the country together. I think the selection is a sign he may actually mean it.

Dec 23, 2008 - 9:34 am 17. Anonymous:

Some thoughts on your posts:

1. “…not everyone in the gay community reacted poorly to the passing of Proposition 8.” I don’t know “everyone,” but everyone that I know did in fact react poorly. The issue with Prop 8 is that it forcibly took rights away from one group of people, a minority, that that minority already had, and indeed the people who put Prop 8 together and pushed it through are bigoted against gay people. So let’s be clear: An openminded person does not seek to take rights away from others, or seek to deprive others of rights that everyone else is entitled to. Although, you may not call what happened bigotry, but let’s be honest that’s what it is.

2. “…inviting Warren to give a prayer at the inauguration, that’s an unspeakable outrage.” Here’s why gays are upset: Warren is anti-gay. His own church website up until yesterday was laced with rhetoric about gays being sinners, and of course, Warren is on video saying just that among many other unsavory and downright nasty comments directed at gays. Thus, the outrage. There are many other ministers that Obama could have reached out to. The one Obama chose happens to be anti-gay. Please cut gay people some slack here. If a minister were speaking who said horrible things about you and your family, you’d be upset about it. It’s a human reaction. Gays are human you know. Made in God’s image, just like everyone else.

3. “Although Warren isn’t pro-gay marriage, he absolutely is no hate monger.” Warren is in fact fomenting hate against gay people by seeking to deny them of their rights. What would you call someone who forcibly goes out of their way to take your rights away from you? Gays feel hated by him. You likely would too if you were on the receiving end of his actions.

4. “We know how it is. If you even talk to someone who who doesn’t believe in their cause you’re a knuckle dragging bigot.” This sort of logic is used to make gays look unreasonable. Gay people are not unreasonable. Gay people are sick and tired of being picked on. Gays are openminded people, and clearly allow for differing viewpoints. Gays don’t look for tolerance, acceptance and anything of the kind. What gays want is to be left alone to live our lives. Just as you want to be left alone to live your lives. Gays don’t want people telling us we’re not worthy of the same rights as everyone else. You are entitled to your views, but isn’t it time to live and let live? Really, this world has got bigger fish to fry.

5. “…I long ago ceased thinking of LGBT people as a victim class. In general, they seem to be doing rather well for themselves – always have, in fact. Frankly, they appear to be one of the wealthiest, most influential “minorities” in the country. … But pardon me if I don’t weep over its supposed ‘chilling effect’ on the LGBT community.” All gays are rich? That’s news to me. This one isn’t. I don’t know a single rich gay person. I know gay people who go to work every day just like everybody else and have lousy jobs like everyone else and are underpaid and underappreciated at work just like everybody else. The “chilling effect” on the gay community is that rights were taken away from us. That out to send a chill down everyone’s spine, straight and gay. You don’t want to live in a world where people who don’t like you will vote to take your rights away from you. You think it will stop with the gays? Think again. Once you start stripping one minority of their rights, the rest will follow. There’s are loads of people out there who hate Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. Should these people be emboldened to start taking rights away since everyone turned a blind eye when it happened to the gays? Think about it. This is the proverbial slippery sloap.

6. “I simply do not understand why gays should care about getting married.” Lots of heterosexual people feel the same way about straights getting married. Some people want to get married. That’s the extent of it. You don’t need to get it. Because you “dont’ get” why gays want to marry is a reason to deny gays equal rights? Really?

7. “I vehemently oppose any stance that Gay rights and civil rights of citizens are on the same page.” That’s how YOU feel. Others feel diffferently. The similarity is that rights are being denied. “I actually think they all ‘choose.’” Well, that’s simply not true. But you’re welcome to believe what you want to believe. But just because YOU believe this, is it a reason to deny gay people equal rights? Why isn’t it enough for you to have your beliefs and allow others to have their beliefs? Why must you take your beliefs to the next level of denying gay people equal rights?

8. “…religous institutions would’ve been strong armed to recognize these individuals. A domino effect, so to speak.” That’s also not true. Religious institutions may do exactly what they want to do. Religious institutions may slam their doors in the faces of gay people if that’s what the institution chooses to do. Marriage is a “civil union.” That means it’s a legal matter. Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they don’t care to marry, including people who are not members of their churches. This line of defense is 100% fabricated and it’s unfair and wrong to use it as your sole basis for debate on this issue. Since what you’ve written is not true, there’s no reason to bring it up.

9. “Politicians should not be required to choose between traditional Christians and Gays.” True. Who asked them to choose? If you ask me, it has been the Christians who have been TELLING politicians they have to choose, not asking. Again, all gays want is to be left alone to live our lives with 100% equality across the board. When you get into telling people they are less than you, as the Christians have been doing with gays, then the group being attacked is going to react. If you don’t like the reaction, quit attacking. Live and let live.

10. “Realizing that they’re gay is often a scary and emotionally wrenching experience for teenagers. Why would they choose to be gay? If they could choose, why wouldn’t they just choose to be straight and spare themselves the anguish?” Yes, it is human nature to want to be just like everyone else. No one likes being different. Even more so, no one likes being attacked for being different. God made all of us, even the gays.

11. “I’m another gay Republican who is not “outraged” by Rick Warren. The man supports civil unions, and that’s fine with me.” Some gays do want to get married. Should they be denied that desire just because you don’t believe in marriage for yourself?

To close, here’s an idea: Why don’t we all just live and let live? Why don’t we get out hearts and minds out of people’s personal lives and direct that energy toward rescuing our country? Just a thought.

Dec 23, 2008 - 11:30 am 18. Princess:

You libbbies are sooo sensitive.
WHO would you desire for the inauguration
yuck, bad enough BHO is our next pres, but really folks stop being such crybabies over every little thing or you will see this next four years will be VERY disappointing. BHO is not santa and he will not bring you everything you voted for

Dec 23, 2008 - 12:04 pm 19. Paul_Unalaska:

Anonymous, your calling the LGBT population a ‘minority’ is extremely insulting. To categorize a sexual preference and combine it with a nationality is ignorant to the ..nth degree at best.

FYI, one of the reasons our country requires ‘rescuing’ is people have not looked at our country as a whole, but lived in a secular, gimme gimme type chasm for so long. ‘What’s mine is mine’ approach.

Example: The Continental plane that veered off Colorado’s airport this past week-end. The resulted injuries occurred AFTER the plane lurched off the tarmac and stopped within 600 ft of one of the airport’s fire stations. Instead of helping their fellow man/woman and child, people were frantic, self centered and disgusting when exiting the damaged craft. ‘To hell with the others’ was the apparent action. Similiar to the Seinfeld episode where George was pushing women and children of a supposed kitchen fire. Hence the broken bones, bruising, etc.,

Lastly, show me an event, workplace where there’s an, ‘Heterosexual Pride’ parade, a white only college, a special interest group that is for the advancement of ALL PEOPLE, an office that doesn’t use EEO as their hiring tablet but educated, intelligent and well spoken applicants need only apply. THAT’S A WORLD WHERE SEXUAL PREFERENCE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, NATIONALITY, ETC., DON’T MATTER. We, as homo sapiens get futher and further from that society each and everyday with your banter.

Dec 23, 2008 - 3:02 pm 20. Paul_Unalaska:

‘What’s mine is mine’

-Excuse me, I’d meant ‘What’s yours is mine’. Sorry for the confusion.

Dec 23, 2008 - 5:46 pm 21. Dave D:

anon, its not about living and let living. Its about glbt having the same moral legitimiacy as heterosexual marriage, and your entire post shows this is the reasoning. This means not so much legal change, but moral change..civil unions grant virtually all of the legal rights, but marriage grants moral legitimacy.

That’s why the huge firestorm of protest..obama’s selection of warren was a moral issue, not a legal one. he is not appointing warren to his cabinet, he is not doing anything except using him figuratively as an olive branch to evangelicals, mostly i wager to soften their worry that he would stomp all over them politically. But he violated the moral argument by having someone who doesn’t believe in the moral equivalency of all modes of sexual expression.

That desire is something that can never be satisfied in law, mostly because while a majority of people are okay with gayness and the need for legal equivalency, they can’t find it morally equivalent, for whatever reason.

I think that is what people find worrisome. Legal equality even christians accept, in terms of protections, custody, etc-that never was the dilemmna. What was was glbt often trying to use the courts and other means, like the schools, to try and force acceptance of moral equivalency. That isn’t live and let live.

Legal equivalency can be satisfied, but moral can’t.

Dec 23, 2008 - 8:00 pm 22. Confused in Virginia:

I hope you will forgive my ignorance, but I have a couple of questions I hope you can answer. First, why is it that anyone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle (although I know that it is not a choice), is called a homophobic. That word suggests that people have an irrational fear of gays. Maybe some people were brought up in the christian faith and they believe homosexuality is a sin. I have heard the word tolerance thrown about, but this means that everyone should tolerate gays, although gays don’t seem to have an obligation to tolerate anyone who thinks that being gay is a sin.

Secondly, just about every gay person I know (my sister is gay, so I know a lot of her friends) wants to convert someone to their lifestyle. I don’t understand why, but I’ve been told that the majority of the people are gay, but that they are just too afraid to try it. Do you agree with that?

Thirdly, it seems that gay people want to announce their sexual preference to everyone. I believe that straight, gay, or otherwise, a person’s preference should be a private matter. I don’t go announcing to the world who I have sex with.

As for the Rev. Warren issue, I read something on another board, posted by a gay person who said, and I’m paraphrasing, that the gays got Obama elected and that he owes that community selecting an openly gay minister to give the invocation, and several cabinet positions should be filled by openly gay people. I thought the whole idea of electing Obama was to change government, not to start having him answer to special interest groups. Any thoughts?

I realize that this post might seem ignorant and anti-gay, but please don’t slam me. I am trying to learn something from your answers, and I am not anti-gay in any sense of the word. I thank you in advance for taking the time to read this and respond.

Dec 24, 2008 - 2:26 am 23. Marauder:

Anonymous: Seeing as you stated it as a sweeping statement, I have to disagree that “Gays are openminded people, and clearly allow for differing viewpoints.” Of course there are a lot of openminded gay people who allow for differing viewpoints, but there are gay jerks and intolerant gay people the same way that there are jerks and intolerant people among every group.

Confused in Virginia:

“First, why is it that anyone who does not approve of the gay lifestyle (although I know that it is not a choice), is called a homophobic. That word suggests that people have an irrational fear of gays. Maybe some people were brought up in the christian faith and they believe homosexuality is a sin. I have heard the word tolerance thrown about, but this means that everyone should tolerate gays, although gays don’t seem to have an obligation to tolerate anyone who thinks that being gay is a sin.”

I’ve always thought “homophobic” was kind of a dumb term. People can disapprove of something without being afraid of it, and personally, I wish we’d figure out some other word that means “disapproving of homosexuality” without projecting motives and fears onto it.

I knew a girl once who had a religious opposition to homosexuality but was a nice person who would never be mean to anyone. I figured as long as she wasn’t being mean to gay people, she could think what she wanted. Sometimes, however, people who have religious objections to homosexuality are so busy crusading against it that they forget to treat gay people with kindness and to remember that they’re people with feelings just like everyone else.

I’m curious – if you believe “the gay lifestyle” isn’t a choice, how can it be a sin, in your mind? Don’t you have to choose to sin?

“Secondly, just about every gay person I know (my sister is gay, so I know a lot of her friends) wants to convert someone to their lifestyle. I don’t understand why, but I’ve been told that the majority of the people are gay, but that they are just too afraid to try it. Do you agree with that?”

You may know a bunch of gay people, but, as you indicate, they’re all your sister’s friends. They’re not representative of gay people as a whole. I definitely don’t think the majority of people are gay and are just too afraid to try it.

The problem with determining views of a group based on all the people you know from that group is that they’re individual people, and individual people of one group don’t always represent every other individual in that group. Say, for example, you knew eight black people and they were all black supremicists who hated white people. Are there black supremicists who hate white people? Of course there are, but just because all the ones you know are that way doesn’t mean all the ones in the world are that way, or even a large percentage of all the ones in the world.

“Thirdly, it seems that gay people want to announce their sexual preference to everyone. I believe that straight, gay, or otherwise, a person’s preference should be a private matter. I don’t go announcing to the world who I have sex with.”

I don’t know if you’re male or female, but you’ve probably had a girlfriend or boyfriend at some point, right? And you probably did things like kiss them on the cheek when other people were around and introduce them as “this is my girlfriend/boyfriend so-and-so.” At the same time, I’m sure you didn’t regale everyone with tales of what you were or weren’t doing with them sexually.

Most gay people just want to be able to do the same thing – not have to hide how they feel about someone they’re dating or in love with. It would be kind of ridiculous if straight people all decided that they were never going to tell anyone about their spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends because “a person’s preference should be a private matter,” and they were never going to publically show any affection for them, or even acknowledge that they had spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. Should they be telling everyone what they were doing in bed last night? No, that’s “too much information” regardless of whether someone’s gay or straight, though of course some gay and straight people do it anyway.

Obama shouldn’t have to meet some kind of quota for gay people; he should pick the people he thinks are best for the job and best for America, regardless of race or sexuality.

I really appreciate that you want to learn something, and I hope my answer helped.

Dec 24, 2008 - 4:29 am 24. Anna Turtle:

This article really downplays Rick Warren’s homophobia. He is not some sensible guy who just happens to be against gay marriage. He equates gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. Gays are not welcome at his church. That goes a little further than a simple disagreement about whether gay marriage should be legalized or not.

Obama can do better for a speaker, and the Christian right can do better for a leader.

Dec 24, 2008 - 12:33 pm 25. Confused in Virginia:

Marauder: Thank you for your reply. You are correct in that it seems like a contradiction to know that being gay is not a choice, while believing that it is a sin. That is something that I wrestle with all the time. I saw what my sister went through when she realized that she was gay. I think the whole family knew, even though she denied it – even to herself. I know that it is not an eazy life, especially when people are so quick to judge. I accept her for who she is, and I’ve tried to change the way I see things, but my father was a minister, so we were taught from early on that this was a sin. I may in time be able to change – I hope I can.

As for showing affection for my husband, I don’t believe in showing affection in public. I think the only time we did that was on our wedding day, but you are correct that I introduce him as my husband.

I have always, and will always treat people with respect regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. I think that is something that is sorely lacking nowadays.

Maybe the best thing for me to do is talk with people like you, who can speak about the subject rationally, rather than just immediately judging me for my views instead of trying to educate me. Thanks again for being so kind.

Dec 24, 2008 - 12:48 pm 26. hp:

Opposing same-sex marriage does not make Warren — or anyone else — bigoted or hateful.

those who accept warren under those circumstances better sure as h. fire accept the same of anyone who voted against obama as being non-hateful and non-bigoted, too.

but they won’t. THEIR hate and bigotry is too far over the top to allow for open eyes and ears.

Dec 24, 2008 - 3:40 pm 27. Kevin:

Number 23:

Sin is actually “missing the mark.” Traditionally the Christian teaching has been all sex outside of a sanctified marriage is a sin. In this case, being attracted to members of the same sex may be genetic to some degree (and honestly I am not sure its proven but even so, being drunk is a sin even if you are genetically predisposed to alcoholism) but acting on that impulse is sinful. It isn’t a comfortable position in this society, but then again Christianity is not supposed to be of this world and lots of things are sinful that we accept today. One could say most 16-20 something Christians probably wish premarital sex wasn’t considered sinful. It is and say what you like about Warren et al but he is consistent.

That said, I find it interesting the supporters of gay marriage are often the same folks who think we need to understand the Islamic viewpoint with its intolerance of gays, support of slavery, and treatment of women but don’t even consider that the Christian one might need to be understood.

Dec 24, 2008 - 5:18 pm 28. lorenzo:

It would be nice if the “marriage is always between a man and a woman” falsehood would not get trotted out again and again. Lots of cultures have had same-sex marriage.

Dec 25, 2008 - 3:28 am 29. John:

Lorenzo (#28):

Got some proof of that claim? Any reading of history not tainted with Boswell-like rewriting showsthey were few, far-between, and very specifically limited to certain ritualistic practices.

Dec 25, 2008 - 7:23 pm 30. Kevin:

“Lots of cultures have had same-sex marriage.”

Name one.

Dec 26, 2008 - 5:00 am 31. Ann:

28Lorenzo: lots of cultures have not had same sex marriage. Lots of cultures have had same sex relationships that were ignored or accepted. Two quite different things.

What the same sex marriage proponents don’t seem to realize is that calling such an arrangement a marriage doesn’t make it one any more than me going into the garage makes me a car. Sorry to go back to that old basic illustration, but when the language is SO being lost, the old basic illustrations are helpful.

Dec 26, 2008 - 5:43 am 32. Daniel:

I don’t understand what the big brouhaha is about.

As a gayly married man in Massachusetts, I couldn’t care less if anyone opposes Gays marrying.

You think homomarriages make Jesus angry ? Fine. Then don’t have them in your church.

Look at the Catholics. They don’t think non-Catholics should be allowed to marry Catholics, so what do they do? Simple. They don’t marry non-Catholics in their churches. Do they go to the government saying “we have to ban non-Catholic marriage in the constitution. For the last 10,000 years, we’ve only had Catholics getting married. Human civilization has depended on it, and letting non-Catholics marry will destroy the planet” ? No.

In my Jewish congregation, we think same-sex marriage is wonderful. I was in a Jewish same-sex wedding not too long ago. Hundreds of relatives and a rabbi were there, many of whom had also had Jewish weddings. We all have legal marriage licenses, and we don’t understand why Goyim who don’t go to our shul should even care what our marriages are like. I’m sure it works the other way around — that the Catholics aren’t keeping themselves up all hours of the night worrying about who got hitched at Temple Sinai last weekend.

To each his own. That’s how we do it in America.

So, why should the government get involved in the first place? Why should a couple of people at Rick Warren’s TV church control the policy affecting everyone else’s congregation?

In Massachusetts, churches who don’t want to marry Gays don’t have to, but churches who do, can. Congregations and individuals have a choice. Free to marry or not marry. Easy.

I’m personally not bothered at all with what Rick Warren believes. He probably believes in the Easter Bunny and Mr. Hanky too, but he’s probably a nice guy for the most part. Maybe not the smartest man, certainly not the best-looking man, but probably a nice one.

Where he crosses the line is when he tries to use the government to enforce his personal religious beliefs. To me, the genius of this country, the reason why we have so many healthy religious communities in the first place, is because the government stays out of religion. If Rick Warren wants to legislate religion as he sees it, it’s a two-way street. Before long, the government will show up and start managing your Gospel. Is that what you want? Affirmative action eucharist?

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Dec 26, 2008 - 7:30 am 33. Bryn:

All I can say is that these left wing so called gay advocacy groups do not represent me! My life does not revolve around the over paid Chelsea and WeHo activists who are completely out of touch with mainstream gays and lesbians. HRC, GL Task Force and the other out of touch gay organizations are running a scam on glbt’s around this country. They claim to speak for all of us. They want our money and support, but use that money to fund high priced dinners with left wing nut job actors tooting their horns. When they get around to actual representing all glbt’s in this country then I will support them. Until then stop whining about Warren. I would much rather have him doing the prayer than Media Queens Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton!

I have seen such disgusting HATE from gay groups lately against Christina and anyone who disagrees with them that it is appalling. It’s no wonder mainstream society still is leery of gays, when we have morons in leadership positions spewing their own brand of hatred.

Proudly gay, proudly out, proudly married, proudly Christian in a leadership position!

Dec 26, 2008 - 5:51 pm 34. JR:

As a non-practicing anything, I find it curious that there is a huge uproar about Warren but it was all apologetics, ‘aint no thing but a chicken wing’ when it came to Wright.

He’s giving an invocation, people, not part of Obama’s cabinet. Hell, he’s not even his pastor. One sermon and he’s outta there. Big damn deal. Think that he’s going to be preaching about homosexuality or anything sexaul at all? Highly doubtful. LMAO

As a real moderate, I find the concept of ‘tolerance’ extremely amusing when it comes to the left. “We’ll tolerate anything alternative, but horrors! we can’t tolerate anything boring and Christian”.

I’ll believe in left wing tolerance the day that Rick Warren gives his invocation and no one on the left goes ‘BOOGEYMAN’!

Not holding my breath. In fact, I’m certaint that somewhere there will be idiots with signs, protesting this event.

I would offer up that we’re still at war in two countries and our economy is in the proverbial toilet. Perhaps we’ve got bigger things to worry about then some guy’s 10 minute prayer…which, I predict, will be kind, hopeful and short.

Tempest in a teapot.

Dec 26, 2008 - 8:20 pm 35. josiah:

You’re right; he’s not throwing them under the bus; in fact, “his band” is playing in the inaugural parade. Obama on the down low . . .

Dec 28, 2008 - 9:14 pm 36. BERLET98:

Something Is Amok with the (Florida) SunSentinel.com

Less than 3 months after Florida voters resoundingly defeated gay marriage in the Sunshine State comes this item from SunSentinel.com: “Let Gays Marry, Adopt, Have Civil Unions, Most Floridians Say [emphasis added]: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/elections/sfl-flbgay0123sbjan23,0,76194.story.

That emphasis was added due to the content of the article which goes on to say, according to a Quinnipiac poll, that 27-35% of all surveyed voters endorsed all those demands of the LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgendered community.

First and foremost, even 35% can hardly be construed as constituting most Floridians, unless there’s some new math out there which equates one-third with a majority.

Secondly, there must have been a mass upheaval over a very short timespan in the thinking of Floridians regarding gay adoption if, again according to Quinnipiac and SunSentinel.com, 55% now oppose the state law prohibiting such adoptions. (Older, Republican, poorer, and less educated voters are said to be the bigoted culprits who still believe in traditional morality.)

Of course, depending on the poll-takers and the wording of poll questions, any poll can be skewed and that could explain Quinnipiac’s results but nothing can explain SunSentinel.com’s interpreting and reporting that a minority of Floridians means “most Floridians say.”

My personal suspicion is that an LGBT constituent is the headline writer for Sun Sentinel.
(http://genelalor.com/)

Jan 24, 2009 - 2:46 pm 37. BERLET98:

The inaugural is old gay news. Here’s some new gay news:

Gay Predators on the Loose–Again!

They’re crawling out of the woodwork again!

That’s somewhat misleading since gays haven’t crawled back under the woodwork for decades now, ever since they started feeling empowered by various state and federal legislation after they went activist following the Stonewall Riots in 1969.

They even forced the American Psychiatric Association to change its age-old designation of homosexuality from a sick aberration to simply a variation on the norm.

(See dozens of articles on this site relating to the gay scourge on society by entering “homosexuality” in the Search box.)

Well, they’re in the news. Again.

On Long Island, New York, one of their ilk has been caught after preying on an unknown number of high school students.

Suffolk County cops apprehended previously convicted gay sex offender and HIV-infected Robert Musmacker of Oceanside with his pants almost literally down and with a 16 year old Brentwood boy in Musmacker’s car: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-libren0131,0,6967577.story.

After a preliminary investigation into 36 year old Musmacker’s background and his student contacts at Brentwood secondary schools, police estimated that as many as 20 students may have been “involved” with him and exposed to the HIV virus.

Brentwood Superintendent of Schools, Donna Jones, indicated that Musmacker “had been known to prey on victims as young as 12,” but did not disclose how she knew or what, if anything, she did about it.

Musmacker’s previous conviction was for sodomizing an 11 year old relative. He served 6 years and was released in 1998: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lisusp316018468jan31,0,6396200.story. His latest victims may have “met” him via the Internet.

Meanwhile, out in the Midwest in the Chicago area–demonstrating that homosexual predators are hardly confined to New York–a 53 year old teacher at MacArthur Middle School in Prospect Heights stands accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.

Richard Vos, a computer teacher and advisor to the school’s computer club, allegedly met the boy first when the boy was 13 and their “meetings” went on for a year and half…

(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)

Feb 1, 2009 - 2:05 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: