Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

Let's hope so.

Perhaps that was just my interpretation of what I was hearing. Here is one of the Talking Points
Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion because I have no idea what that common ground could possibly be. As long as evangelicals are damning us to hell, refusing to stop calling it a choice, or a 'lifestyle', continuing to slander us as promiscuous, and - top of the list - creating ways to deny us our rights, I cannot see the middle ground. As I said, their side is opinion and scripture based. My side is reality.

Heeere's Rick Let's see, he calls my life a "lifestyle" AGAIN. He supports equal rights for all people in America (?). He is opposed to brothers & sisters, fathers & daughters and gays getting married. Wow. That's not too offensive. He supported Prop 8 as a free speech issue (lying that pastors would be charged with hate speech if it didn't pass).

But... apparently he has actually eaten at a gay persons house, so... that's... something.

This one gets more interesting around the 6 minute mark.
I do give him credit for all he has done for AIDS.

He 'was wired by God' to like women' but doesn't think God wired gay people the way they are. I should actually follow God's plan and not have sex. Apparently, Rick doesn't get STDs because he follows God's rules, I'm not sure why I've never had one.

Rick's endorsement of Prop 8
We should not LET 2% of Americans change the definition of marriage.

At least he's recently come out and said he loves gay (and straight) people!

Things might be really bad if he hated us.

If you're focused entirely on the one issue, I can understand how you'd be unable to see where any common ground could possibly be. And I can understand how you'd be focused on that one issue if it's an issue that directly impacts your daily life.

I'm frankly not sure how Pastor Rick became the spokesperson for the Obama Administration's position on gay/lesbian rights, could you explain that to me? Is there any evidence, even an iota, that his arguments will have any influence at all on Mr. Obama? Or is it perhaps even remotely possible that friendly persuasion by Obama and other influential people with similar interpersonal skills might persuade Pastor Rick to change his views the way another Pastor Rick has done.

Indeed. There aren't many Reverend Phelpses out there, thanks be.

That is the fundamental problem I have with the religious extremists: They seem to have no concept of "equality". They can make statements like Warren's but then can't see how their own statement would apply to other people. If you confront them with such inconsistencies, they fall back to a scriptural quote though their original claim (eg. "wired by God to like women") had no scriptural basis at all.

And that really "seperates the sheep from the goats" for me (to use a scriptural metaphor myself!): When someone does this, I have to conclude their beliefs are simply justification for their own preferences and benefit. Either that, or an excess of reliance on faith has rendered them incapable of recognizing errors of logic.

Steve, i haven't seen anyone, at least here, contend that naming Rev. Warren for the invocation means he will dictate or even influence Obama's decisions. As you keep pointing out, he has already said he does not favor gay marriage rights.

The brouhaha is not over what influence he may have on the President but rather on what influence his selection might have on national opinions. By his choice, Obama has signaled that Warren's position is acceptable.

You may think that is ok. But I invite you to consider what your opinion would be if Warren had said that Friends occupy the same position as gays. That he loves you but that you should never be allowed to marry. Until you put yourself in our shoes, you cannot possibly see this issue as it is.

Phil has a good point.

I know you understand this Steve, but try this. Listen to these people talk and everytime they say "gays" replace it in your mind with "Steves". You will immediately internalize just how condescending, presumptious and superior they are. Pastor Rick seems like a nice guy, I don't like him, but he seems more reasonable than a lot of the leaders.

In the Larry King clip, Pastor Rick admits that the evangelicals were dead wrong about AIDS (it's a quibble to point out that it wasn't until he went to Africa and saw the dying women & children). He has become a huge advocate and I applaud him for that.

I suppose it is possible he will come around on the gay marriage thing. Though it took him nearly 30 years to get around to AIDS. I am not going to hold my breath for three decades waiting for his approval when he realizes that he is dead wrong on gay marriage.

Please understand that I am not belittling the point at all, just trying to place some context. And I'm not speaking from a straight point of view so much as I'm speaking from an atheist point of view.

Do any of us remember who did the prayer at Clinton's second inaugural?

Do any of us remember whether a poem was read at either of Bush's inaugurals?

Do any of us remember either of Bush's inaugural speeches?

While I'm not thrilled with Obama's choice, I never listen to the inaugural prayer anyway; I wonder how many do. And even for those who listen closely - I would be stunned if gay rights were mentioned during that prayer (or anything else substantial, for that matter.)

Let's face it - many strict Christians hold positions which are upsetting, or perhaps even offensive, to others. We continue to elect Christian presidents; we will continue to hear Christian prayers. Some would be happier with someone like Joel Osteen. Many of us would be happier with no prayer at all - and that, too, would offend thousands if not millions. But there are not a lot of Christian congregations that have come to grips with gay rights in a positive way. There are some, but they are not the majority. That's the reality. Obama has already dumped one preacher who did not fit the public's idea of "appropriate." Why are we so particular about his preacher?

I don't even know what church Bush attends, if any; I don't know which church Obama will attend, if any. And we're talking about one prayer.

This preacher is not being appointed to a cabinet position. He is saying a prayer at a ceremony that most will watch, but few listen to. Obama's speech will be the only part of the ceremony anyone hears or remembers. I doubt anyone who listens to the prayer will hear anything other than a prayer for the country and its new president.

(added: Tom Daschle, who will be heading Health and Human Services, was supportive of the Defense of Marriage Act as recently as 2004. I would think his current position would be much more of a concern than Preacher Rick's.)

I disagree. One of the points that Obama has consistently made throughout his campaign is that you can work with people with whom you have disagreements on issues. There are many issues with which he disagrees with Republicans, but he looks for common ground for agreement to build a coalition on issues that he does agree upon. There are many issues with which he disagrees with Evangelicals (remember his Reverend Wright speech), and yet he looks for common ground on issues upon which they can agree. I think his selection of Warren was a signal in that regard.

I don't like Warren for a number of reasons, and I don't agree with most of what he has done, and in particular his inexcusable position with regard to gays. I don't like Wright either, and I don't approve of Ayers' association with the Weather Underground, but Wright's church did a lot for the community, and Ayers has done a lot for education, and many of the same people condemning Obama for this decision supported him with regard to those associations. I think there needs to be some consistency here.

There will be issues with which I will disagree with Obama (and I disagree with his stance on same-gender marriage), but with his approach, many of the issues that I am passionate about will be pursued by his administration. I don't expect perfection in anyone, or agreement with anyone on all issues. (Frankly, I have more of an issue with anyone giving an invocation at an official ceremony, than with who is selected to give it.) I believe that there will be a general improvement on most of the issues I agree with under the Obama administration, but there is no way that 4 or 8 years under Obama will achieve all that needs to be done. 90% is still an excellent grade, and 3.5 an acceptable GPA for me. Perhaps by the end of his term enough progress will have been made that same-gender marriage will become the norm in the United States - with the elimination of DoMA, and DADT in the military, and perhaps the federal recognition of same-gender marriages under State laws. I genuinely share the frustration with the unspeakable discrimination that exists against gays - and it is fully the same civil-right struggle that faces minorities of any kind. I wish the majority of the population could wake up and see that, but I think we are heavy sleepers. I just don't see the selection of Warren as being the setback that it is being portrayed as. The selection of Nancy Sutley as chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality is far more significant.

I'm sure it doesn't compare to how it feels to be gay, or Black, but I've certainly had that experience, and I know what it's like. I grew up in such a household. I still have a close personal relationship like that. Yours is not an easy road to travel, I know that.

It took us Quakers a hundred years to realize that we were dead wrong on slavery. It took my Meeting fifty years to realize that it was wrong on same-gender marriage. During those time periods, there were many who chose not to hold their breath. In the end, it isn't merely a question of whether one speaks up or not, it is a question of what one says.

It would be a better point if it were true. Such an arbitrary statement carries no weight. Has anyone asked Mr. Obama if that is his intention, to "signal that Warren's position is acceptable"? If not, why not? Is it because it's easier to assume a point that strengthens the argument rather than risking the point being refuted?

Firstly, as I stated above, I do not think it's okay for you to assume what Mr. Obama "signaled" by choosing Pastor Warren. I don't agree that that is what he "signaled", I think it's been very clear from the beginning that he and Warren share the same position vis-a-vis the "M" word. Secondly, I did put myself in "your" shoes. In terms of my own relationship. Perhaps you had forgotten that.