I predicted this in another thread shortly after the election of Obama--that it would not be long till all of the love-struck Obama fans would grow more and more disappointed by him as his presidency played out. I know he is not yet president, but it seems he is already disappointing. Sorry, but I had a feeling this would be the case and I am sorry that he is not being supportive to gay marriage. I guess he is showing his true colors.

This is what happens when you put your full faith and trust in someone that panders to someone or a group as long as it serves him. You might as well get used to this with President Obama because you will never know where he stands on anything, it's very vague when it comes to supporting/not supporting Gay marriage, look where that got you.

Btw, Bush didn't invite Warren for either of his inagurals,one would have to google to find out exactly who it was.

Do you always pout when you don't get your way Rayman? Take your toys and go home?

My suggestion is to go out and read Warren's Purpose Driven Life and decide for yourself whether he is the monster that the LGBT community paints him to be and yes I would force myself to watch the invocation and then you can judge, but this pouting stuff is childish.

Cheers,

Steve

Hi Rayman,

I think Barak Obama made a personal choice in choosing Pastor Rickie. I think it will make him feel like he is reaching out, reaching over, or just plain reaching, whatever, frankly, I think that Barak Obama is making himself "feel good," "feel diversified," whatever, anyway, obviously, he wasn't thinking a whole lot about how others would feel about it, so, since, it is his party I suppose if he wants to make himself feel good, he might as well. He'll have a great time at his party while others.......not so much....it is nice to see the very human flaw in Barak Obama, though, of selfishness, and, yes, a little of his intellectual snobbishness, "this is what I think and what I think is better than what you think, so there."

He wants Pastor Rickie and Pastor Rickie it shall be...

I hope I won’t tread on anyone’s toes by jumping in here because I’m not gay and I’m not American. However, I’ve been reading the debates over what will happen to gay rights under Obama - in light of the recent heartache over proposition 8 and the controversy over Rick Warren - and I thought it might be interesting to compare the Labour government’s effect in Britain.

For what it’s worth, I believe you should never give in to bigotry on any level, you should never settle for second best and you should never stop fighting for complete equality. That said, change can come by degrees. Sometimes it’s hard to see the wood for the trees and I think the bigger picture under Obama will far outweigh any individual set backs over the next few years.

You now have a popular leader who is openly supportive of gay people. He talks about them like they are ordinary human beings who deserve equal rights as a matter of course. That shouldn’t be something special, but given the last eight years, it is. He mentions them in his speeches. He will be seen meeting with gay people and treating them as friends or as qualified statesmen and woman. Do not underestimate the cultural shift this will bring. The frustrating thing is it’s a drip drip effect, not a clean sweep, but change will come.

In Britain, there has been a massive shift over the last eleven years. This isn’t all brought about the by the government but I believe its laws and statements, even when relatively lukewarm, have had a huge impact. It’s far from perfect, I have many criticisms of Labour, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but the accumulative effect of Labour policy has meant that we are living in a different country today for GLBT people than we were ten or eleven years ago.

I thought it might be interesting to track some of the changes in Britain in the last eight years. Not all the issues are the same for you. All these changes came slowly – it’s not anything astounding, but I believe it shows that progress builds on progress when you have a (moderately) porgressive government and, as MLK put it, ‘the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.’

UK Gay Rights Timeline...

2000
Armed Forces Ban Lifted

The Government lifts the ban on gay personnel in the army, navy and airforce.

2001
Age of Consent Equalised

The age of consent is equalised for gay men from 18 for male-male couples and 16 for heterosexual couples, to 16 for both (oddly, there was never age of consent at all for lesbians, see 2004).

Equal Adoption Legislation Passed

Unmarried and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children as a couple, across the UK.

2003
Section 28 Removed

A notorious law stating that schools and other local council authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or promote the teaching in school of "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship," whatever that may mean.

This law was often used by school teachers as a defense against supporting children facing homophobic bullying. It was thrown on the scrapheap in 2003. In 2008, the government has been cooperating in efforts to introduce anti-homophobic bullying strategies to all schools. Given the suicide rates of young gay teens, where is the campaign for similar school strategies in the US?

2003
Employment Anti-Discrimination Law Passed

It becomes illegal to discrimnate on grounds of sexual orientation in employment across the UK, with a few exceptions for religious posts.

2004
Sexual Offences Act Passed

This act removed any loophole laws which unfairly discriminated against gay sex. For example, although unlikely to be enforced in modern times, a ‘gross indecency’ clause technically banned group sex between consenting men in private, even though the latter is perfectly legal for heteros. Hey, whatever floats your boat. The law also cleared the names of anyone convicted of these offences in the past and finally acknowledged that gay women have sex, giving them an age of consent - 16, like everyone else.

Civil Partnerships Law Passed

Not marriage, but it gave same-sex couples the same rights as married couples across the whole of the UK. It was supported by all the political parties and the main newspapers and there was an air of celebration and pride across the country on the day it came into effect in 2006.

2005
The Equal Provision of Goods and Services Law Passed

To my mind, one of the biggest steps. This law was passed after a charity worker was refused a double bed in hotel and bombarded with homophobic emails when he tried to rent a room for himself and his male partner. With the exception of a handful of religious ceremonies, it is now illegal to refuse to offer any service to a gay person or couple if you would offer the same service to a heterosexual person or couple. From adoption services to hospital treatment, dating agencies to holidays, it’s all equal now. See Stonewall UK’s cheerful booklet on the subject here: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/the_colour_of_your_money_final.pdf Again, I’m surprised there aren’t visible campaigns for such a law in the US.

2006
Conservative Party Supports Gay Rights

David Cameron, the newly elected leader of the UK Conservative Party (our equivalent of the Republicans), states that the Conservatives will be supportive of gay rights and will actively seek to attract gay candidates and gay voters. He applauds the introduction of civil partnerships. OK, in general I think he’s a cynical, lightweight pillock, but it was still a fairly momentous step for a party that has previously consistently opposed most gay rights legislation and used it as a wedge issue. There are still many bigots in the party but they’re increasingly becoming an embarrassment to the mainstream Conservatives.

2008
IFV Law Changed

Parliament voted to remove a clause in the law which requires infertility treatment providers to consider the "need for a father," a clause often used to deny lesbian couples IVF treatment.

2008
Incitement to Homophobic Hatred Law Passed

A controversial law (which some gay rights advocates opposed on grounds that it curtailed free speech) passed this year, banning the incitement of homophobic hatred. The law is designed to cover serious attempts to insight hatred of gay people, not merely use of language which causes offense, and there are loopholes for religious teachings.

Army Becomes Diversity Champion

In 2008, the army became one of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions, joining the Navy and Airforce in actively encouraging and supporting gay recruits.

"General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said: "I am delighted that the Army has become a member of Stonewall's Workplace Programme. One of the Army's six Core Values is 'Respect for Others' and it is therefore our absolute duty to treat our fellow soldiers as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Discrimination against those in the Army who are lesbian, gay and bisexual does not give them a chance to contribute or to play a full part in the teams that are vital for our success on operations. Respecting others is therefore part of the trust that has to exist between soldiers and the Nation's values of tolerance, decency and quality must be reflected in the Army. We look forward to working with Stonewall"

Government Supports UN Declaration for the Universal Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Worldwide

What it says above. Non-binding but a symbolic step. The first UN statement to recognise gay rights. Your current government is refusing to sign, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and other beacons of human rights.

To Sum Up...

We now live in a Britain where gay relationships are recognised, discrimination is illegal in all areas of employment, goods and services, hate speech is banned and the two dominant political parties broadly support gay rights. The opponants of the repeal of Section 28 and the army ban were hysterical in the ninties but now that the laws have passed they've all but vanished. Most people support anti-homophobic bullying policies in schools. Change brings change. Recent surveys have shown a majority of British people now support gay marriage, not just civil partnerships, because they have seen the joy that civil partnerships brought, so even if civil unions isn’t what you want, it is a genuine step in the right direction.

I'm not trying to paint the UK as a paradise because it's far from that but in those around me, I have seen a massive shift in opinion. Even with those who are in the categories most likely to discriminate, the older, more conservative, religious generation, many now see homophobia as something just plain unpleasant. The more the law changes, the more people feel able to come out. This is the crucial point – it is easy to hate some hypothetical, distant minority, but the more they are talked about and the more you realise that one of ‘those people’ might be your next door neighbour, your doctor, your niece, your old school friend or your son, the harder it is to remain bigoted. I believe Obama's policies and actions will push the US in this direction.

About Warren...

For comment from one of the most prominent gay UK websites, see here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10011.html

I’m in two minds about this but I will make two points: 1. you cannot change to minds of the bigots if you don’t even speak or listen to them and 2. during his time in office, Tony Blair was worryingly close to the anti-gay conservative evangelical Bishop James Jones, who supported Section 28 and protested against the election of an openly gay bishop. In recent years, Rev Jones has taken a rather different tone... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/05/religion.world

Here's what happened when Melissa Etheridge met Pastor Warren, something to ponder

The Choice Is Ours Now
by Melissa Etheridge

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long
and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time
climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a
thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the
human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of
this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so
horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and
Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary.
We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against
all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were
jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away
by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in
the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a
gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard
the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed
to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one
hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the
others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall
somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to
hate the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest,
blah blah blah. Same 'ole thing. Would I be boycotting the
inauguration? Would we be marching again?

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor
and indeed works in mysterious ways. As I was winding down the
promotion for my Christmas album I had one more stop last night. I'd
agreed to play a song I'd written with my friend Salman Ahmed, a Sufi
Muslim from Pakistan. The song is called "Ring The Bells," and it's a
call for peace and unity in our world. We were going to perform our
song for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a group of Muslim
Americans that tries to raise awareness in this country, and the
world, about the majority of good, loving, Muslims. I was honored,
considering some in the Muslim religion consider singing to be against
God, while other Muslim countries have harsh penalties, even death for
homosexuals. I felt it was a very brave gesture for them to make. I
received a call the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker
that night... Pastor Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight
instinct took over, should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said,
"Are you really about peace or not?"

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit
of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number.
On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and
before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most
of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a
gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words
that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He
believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He
struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage
redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he
regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation
about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit
incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He
invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and
kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year
before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and
an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's
attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in
this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure,
there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their
bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out
there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They
don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider
marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our
hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass
and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his
church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in
my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality
and equal protection for all families.

Happy Holidays my friends and a Happy New Year to you.

Peace on earth, goodwill toward all men and women... and everyone
in-between.

So, with the Melissa Etheridge story, Rick Warren said basically sorry I didn't mean it that's not how I REALLY feel. He had no problem saying it to a whole congregation but then says he didn't mean it. Sorry, I was not born yesterday. This is a feel-good story. Basically, when the truth gets painful people go into denial.

If a Christian says openly and honestly, "I believe gay marriage is wrong." he or she is painted as a bigot...

If a gay or liberal goes on a riff about the evil of Christianity...he or she is enlightened...

hmmmmm.....

wonder what kind of toys Rayman will take home with her....? :)

(with apologies to baby d) Whoahahahaahah!

my my olivia...you're so openminded....

Not so open-minded my brains fall out.

I am a supporter of gay rights and marriage, but the marriage won't be down the aisle anytime soon. I wish it would, but as long as Americans do not want it, this issue will continue to be governed by the poll numbers.

Warren was a bad choice on many levels, but it was a political choice. Now we have both, Obama and Warren, getting hammered by their base.

Lastly, you may have something about the getting along thing. I know many who are Warren followers, thinkers, maybe not on everything but they like him. The man did not sell 10s of millions of books for nothing, he is a force himself. Moreover he is a religious activist type, who had successfully organized phenomenal work to fight poverty. He is a moderate evangelical by any standards, compared to full blown bigots like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Hagee (all embraced by even the "moderate" McCain.) But what I am getting at is that I heard many, some in my own family, who like Warren and feel that by him giving the invocation it states much about Obama and how he will listen and try to bring us together.

The far left may not like this, but this is the reality. Will Obama score major points doing this? I don't know, the jury is still out on that one, but he is getting nods from that segment that hate the far left and the democratic party.

Folks, Obama is a politician first. I do not believe anything he does is without forward thinking and thought. Did he make a mistake? Possibly, but what if he did not and purposely wanted this conversation in the open. Now we know that Warren has scrubbed his site of all anti-gay rhetoric. Does that mean anything? No, but it may mean something to him if he is trying to elevate the conversation, and it always starts with you.

just some thoughts...

Raymam: although I agree with your point, I tend to look at the pragmatic aspect of how we are going to convert those who do not support gay rights.

There's plenty of evidence of underlying momentum on the issue, perhaps strongest of all the inexorable process of generational replacement. The younger generation is far more tolerant of diversity on many dimensions.

It may well be that Obama's invitation to Warren is insulting and insensitive -- and even rewards the s.o.b. for his own intolerance. But I think we're on the cusp of some important political and social changes, and that if Obama's move can make a marginal difference it's worth it. If not, well it's a pretty damn good object lesson.

I agree with Michael. One reason that cultural issues like abortion have been successful rallying points for Republicans is because such issues tend to beget an asymmetry of passion. While a majority of the country supports abortion rights under most circumstances, the average pro-lifer is probably more engaged by the issue than the average pro-choicer, thereby enabling the 45 percent to outweigh the 55 percent under certain conditions.

That may still be the case for abortion, where public opinion has been static for many years.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

But it may no longer be the case on gay rights. Just who is on what side of the 55/45 split depends on what question you're asking -- a majority of the public now supports civil unions, although not yet gay marriage. That's beside the point, though; what I think the Warren dust-up reveals is that the left is now willing to raise at least as much ruckus about the issue as the right. The left, of course, has always had its own moral compass, but it's now beginning to convert that into more focused, overtly political action. If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it? It's hard to say for sure, but I don't think we would have heard very much about it at all. This all feels very recent, stemming from a renewed self-confidence on the part of the left, coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8.

I say this as someone, by the way, who buys into the "Can't we all just get along?" side of the argument. Some of the discussion has veered toward the wrong side of that equation. Nevertheless, I think the passion aroused among the left on the issue has been fairly *impressive*, and is potentially fairly consequential.

John: "the left is now willing to raise at least as much ruckus about the issue as the right."

To me, that is the whole point here. As my father used to say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." For example, Rachel Maddow had a piece on her show Friday night regarding a statement on Saddleback's website that gay people would not be welcome as members of the church. Last night, she had another piece about how that obnoxious language had been removed by Saturday afternoon. Now, does that mean that gays are suddenly welcome there? Probably not, but it does show how raising a ruckus can effect at least small changes in a short time.

Here are my 2 cents.

I think that the reason the republicans had a grip on power for so long is because of the "unholy" alliance between the social conservatives (religious) and the economic conservatives. And the former yielding power to the latter. That power is what brought the fortunes of the middle class and the poor down. I'm not American but when I look at American politics, it strikes me on how this alliance came to existence. To me, I would think that religious people would care about the poor, the disadvantaged and so on. I think that the government's job is to put in place policies to advance our standards of living (not necessarily directly).

I'm going on and on but my point is this. Warren is a leader of the evangelical movement where the focus is on the Poverty, AIDS and Global Warming, taking the focus away from abortions, gay marriage within the evangelical community. On these issues, the evangelical community is more in tune with the Democrats and Obama and I applaud him for that. This leadership is what I think Obama is trying to gain from Warren within his community and I think that he is advancing the poor and middle class agenda by doing so.

I don't know if Obama did the right thing by selecting Warren but I am surprised by the level of outrage against him. I can understand the passion for the gay rights issue. But Warren is actually moderate for a religious leader. He had used some bad analogies to make his point about his religious definition of marriage. But he is not a gay basher by any means. Feminists have not freaked out over his comments on abortion because they know that policy is what matters. The Supreme Court appointments and the Justice Department matter. Who gives a prayer at an inauguration is usually instantly forgotten. Obama will allow gays to serve in the military because it is simply bad policy to keep them out, especially when we have a shortage of troops. Most Americans do not see gay rights as a civil rights issue, they see it as a social or religious issue. That seems to be what the gay movement has to change.

One thing that I find troubling is how people seem to lump the abortion issue in with the gay marriage issue when they are completely different things!
I think the left is doing itself a disservice by doing that, as I myself am pro-life and will continue to vote pro-life but would be more than willing to vote to legalize gay marriage.