President-Elect Obama decided that on the most important day in a decade, he would choose this guy to start the show:
Also nice:
Christian ministers have been used by every President to perform the inaugural invocation, but this guy--this guy--has been asked to perform the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Yeah, Obama--the hope-y guy! Even if you're not gay you can still hate Rick Warren for being against women's reproductive rights, and I personally hate him a little bit extra because he has also said stupid things about atheists like myself:
I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,' [Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times]. They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself],' and nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job.
At the center of [Warren's] operation is Saddleback Church, which occupies 120 acres in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains.
The church – with nearly 400 employees – features nine types of weekend services, including one in the cavernous 'worship center,' with seating for 3,200 and Warren’s image beamed on jumbo screens.
More than 180,000 pastors subscribe to his weekly “ministry toolbox” e-mail.
“The Purpose Drive Life,” published in 2002, helped create this reach. “It not about you,” Warren writes in the opening of the book, which has sold 35 million copies.
Now isn't that delightful?
While I will wait to see and judge how Obama handles universal healthcare (which I desperately need), the economy (which desperately sucks), and creating green jobs (which desperately are absent), I take this as a complete assault on the issue of LGBT acceptance, and I am deeply offended. I mean, sure, John McCain and MILFy McMooseBurger were much bigger douches, but still!
Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics.
Basically, the Obama people have to argue that they’re being 'inclusive' by giving a platform to this terrible weenie [. . .]. Remember how Bill Clinton had a very 'inclusive' inauguration, with Maya Angelou and snake-charmers and NAMBLA all doing peyote and dancing around Ronald Reagan’s funeral pyre? That’s basically what Obama’s inauguration will be like, only with a diverse array of hairfaced hobbit cretins rubbing their nipples while they fantasize about gay marrying Jesus.
There is no three dimensional chess here or political calculation that makes sense on this point. If the argument is that sacrificing the rights of another group on the altar of political power is a reasonable choice, then you should remember that a society that callously denies one group their humanity can just as easily deny you yours.
If Obama fails to ditch Warren, I urge everyone to follow this passive protest: If you are lucky enough to be at the inauguration, turn your back on Rick Warren while he speaks.
Someone has already taken up this cause and created a website, turnyourbackonrickwarren.com. Let bigoted shithead Rick Warren know that we are past him--that he is behind us.
For more ways to speak out against Rick Warren, click here.
I do have to wonder though--why are opposing equal rights for LGBT, and why are hating atheists, still tolerated as mainstream opinions in America? The only reason why someone like Rick Warren represents 'bringing people together' rather than hatred of multiple large minorities in America, is because hatred of atheists and homosexuals are tolerated.
Sad but true.
(On a positive note, Faith in Public Life reports that marriage equality-supporter and civil rights icon the Rev. Joseph Lowery will be giving the benediction at the end of Obama's inauguration. Among many accomplishments, Rev. Lowery headed the Alabama Civic Affairs Association in the early 1950s--an organization devoted to desegregating public places. He founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with MLK Jr. in 1957, and when the Selma to Montgomery March needed a delegate to speak to the governor with its demands in 1965, they chose Rev. Lowery. He also cofounded the Black Leadership Forum, a consortium of groups promoting black advocacy and the end of apartheid in South Africa. His other accomplishments will also astound you. So that makes this whole thing hurt a little less . . .)
Much has been said about the impact of the gay marriage debate on political discourse. Senator Dianne Feinstein notoriously said in 2004 that the efforts of our community had been "too much, too fast, too soon." This was echoed by many who argued that Kerry's defeat lay in the hands of gay couples who united a base of "fiscal conservatives who see promoting marriage as a way to reduce state dependency, anti-gay voters who quail at the notion of same-sex unions, right-wing Christians who seek to enforce biblically determined family law, and the mass of voters anxious about the instability of marriage" (cite). As Democrats wailed that gays had ushered this motley conservative crew into the ballot boxes to vote Republican, the 11 states that passed anti-marriage initiatives that year did so without showing any actual boost to Bush in the polls.
Despite this, the primary LGBTQ community strategy to combat homophobia and gender discrimination at the polls has relied most heavily on legislative methods (i.e. legal decisions by judges) rather than popular votes. Barack Obama's rhetoric about gay marriage being a states' rights issue might offend many of us, but his determination to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act would mean that the question of gay marriage would once again fall not to the states and their voters but to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bench might lean a little to the right at present, but we cannot deny that most of our gains--even in domestic partnerships--were achieved by judicial decision and not by popular vote; the same can be said for the majority of civil rights triumphs. E.g., 94% of whites polled in 1958 did not approve of interracial marriage, and courts legalized it anyway in 1967. I'm sure there must have been people then, too, griping about "activist judges legislating from the bench," but can anyone deny the value of that landmark ruling?
The MotherJones.com article poses the question: "Should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box?" The answer I infer from reading the article is, maybe not! Consider this: a Quinnipiac University poll from September 2008 shows that 55% of Florida voters polled support their prospective gay marriage ban (margin of error ±2.6%); however, a Rasmussen poll from this week shows only 46% of Florida voters support John McCain (margin of error ±3%).
From whence does this disconnect come? Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign, is quoted as having said: "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this. [. . .] Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."
Some people have argued that anti-marriage sentiment is not homophobic but rather about preserving one of the last vestiges of traditional stability in an increasingly unstable world. Others like Jonathan D. Katz, Prof. of Women's and Gender Studies at Yale, have said, "This isn't about lesbian and gay Americans being treated equally, which is a constitutional guarantee. It's not about that. It's about making money, wedge issues, forging boundaries. It's about dividing this country." Apart from these seemingly well intentioned or cynical foes, you and I can also recognize our homophobic detractors when we see them, whether they identify themselves that way or not.
Even with these traditional opponents, it appears that change is imminent. Some have started to take issue with anti-marriage initiatives as they affect gay and straight couples alike, preventing household diversity not only in gay relationships but also in those of foster parents, adoptive parents, and any number of other "nontraditional" living arrangements. A federal judge actually struck down a Nebraska anti-marriage initiative on these grounds in 2005. Similarly, a generational shift is occurring that shows younger voters have a more favorable view of gay marriage than their predecessors, and the percentage of under-30 voters with a favorable opinion increases each year. Our prospects improve as more tolerant voters come of age.
Richard Kim of The Nation also points out: "The premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a 'threat to civilization,' the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether." In other words, being liberal about stuff just isn't that politically dangerous anymore.
In response to Dianne Feinstein's "too much, too fast, too soon," I point to Prof. Katz again when he says: "We did not put gay marriage on the front burner of the national LGBT agenda; it was put on the agenda by the right and we had no choice but to respond." I believe that as more voters realize that their woes (unaffordable healthcare, unfair wages, increasing disenfranchisement, and undereducated children to name a few) are a direct result of the predatory behavior of the Bush administration, powerful lobbies, and underqualified cronies, they will feel less inclined to blame their eroding security on the queers. Even if this realization does not take place this election cycle, an Obama presidency could make all the difference, putting the fight back in the courts where it belongs.
Doesn't it cheer you to think the day might be here where it is no longer politically expedient to throw us under the bus? when it might expose one as a hypocrite to oppose us? when discrimination and hate would keep one from achieving office? Let us march with our allies to the polls on November 4, secure in McCain's ignominious defeat, chanting all the way: "Let Freedom Sting!"
My blood is racing from all the free coffee down at the Los Angeles Obama campaign headquarters where I spent four hours making phone calls today. To be sure, my.barackobama.com is a great resource for making calls from home, but after Obama's lame vote for the bailout plan this past week I don't have enough love for him right now to rack up charges for him on my cell phone. If you are a frequent reader of my posts you also know what a sucker I am for venues where other hot politically savvy young ladies might be chillin'; also, I am way broke right now, and I knew they would have free food at the office. So I signed up at california.barackobama.com to let them know I was coming, and they gave me a selection of shifts to work.
Now how many of you out there hate being on the phone like me? I don't know if it's a sad comment on lives that are increasingly isolated through technology or if it's just my antisocial tokhes, but I dread making phone calls--even to my best friends. I have smoldering thumbs from all the texts I send. It's nothing personal; I just prefer to reserve my "Hey, how are you?" chitchat for family and sick people. I especially hate calling people to ask them for things, so I was totally kicking myself when the head organizer at the campaign headquarters today asked me if I wanted to do data entry instead of make phone calls.
Data entry? I am the Frickin' Queen of Data Entry (FQDE)! I'm exactly the type of anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive person who is physically pained by spelling mistakes, and every job I've ever had has purposefully indulged me with hours of solitary work painstakingly logging things with code. What could be better for an angry hermit with a mild personality disorder like me than to sit in a dark corner doing meticulous work by myself?
Well, no laptop today, so to the phones I dutifully proceeded. I sounded like a total dipshit for the first, I don't know, ten calls or so, but I got into the rhythm after a while--that, or after enough coffee I could talk to anybody. Anyway, after the first two pages they gave me (36 calls), I said to myself, "Well, that was kind of fun; I'll go back and get another couple of sheets, and then I'll bounce." That kept happening until I had run out two different campaign cell phone batteries and made over 200 phone calls. It was like political crack; I kept saying, "Just one more . . . I need to talk to just one more person in Nevada . . . then I'll quit . . ."
I am actually pleased to report that I had to sit cross-legged and hunched over on top of a small desk the whole time because the place was slammed with people wall-to-wall. Excellent variety--all colors represented, lots of people who spoke English as a second or third language, kids drawing pictures for Obama that were going up on the wall (the pictures, not the kids--and some kids were even making awesome phone calls!), college students, gays, people with disabilities, veterans--all working together and laughing and smiling and constantly moving, waves of them coming through the door and orientations for new volunteers every couple of minutes. Hooray! The organizers acknowledged, though, that they need more people with laptops to help log all the phone calls being made.
Why don't you go down there and add to the diversity at your local campaign headquarters? All happy multicultiness aside (and awesome homemade lasagna too, btw), there were totally not enough hot lesbians down there, neither with nor without laptops. That is why I'm making this appeal to y'all. Please, for my sake, go to [your state].barackobama.com to find a campaign office near you.
By Lesbian Parenting Writer Julie Phineas The Latest Scoop: US Magazine reports Michelle Obama will not be having another child.
The wife of the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States reportedly told Ellen DeGeneres in an interview which airs Monday, "I think I'm done... I think our third child is this campaign." The interview is running during the sixth season premiere of The Ellen DeGeneres Show on September 8th, 2008, where Michelle Obama skillfully declines to comment on the pregnancy of Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol.
Barack Obama has been interviewed on The Ellen DeGeneres Show a few times, and John McCain has been on the show before as well as a few other political figures.
As a lesbian mom I feel that anyone who appears on The Ellen DeGeneres Show is trying to appeal to the LGBT community since Ellen DeGeneres is a lesbian.
Sometimes their appeal backfires, like with John McCain, who stumbled through a mini-statement about how he "respectfully disagrees" with Ellen's request for equal rights.
In the case of Michelle Obama, I hardly speculate that her appeal to the LGBT community on The Ellen DeGeneres Show will backfire, since this is just one example of how Michelle Obama is working to show LGBT supporters that they can trust their vote with her husband, Barack Obama, for President.
The Daily News reported Michelle Obama attending a fundraiser on September 3rd in Los Angeles. This fundraiser turned out to be a 'meet and greet' at a gay and lesbian reception at a mansion in Bel Air. (You can watch the Fox News Video here.)
Michelle Obama reached out to voters in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community to secure their vote for her husband. In other LGBT events Mrs. Obama has been seen at include the LGBT Caucus for the Democratic National Convention on August 26, 2008 where she said "We want to make our nation a place where everyone gets a shot regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation”; and The Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee on June 26, 2008 where she stated that "Barack is not new to the cause of the LGBT community".
Michelle Obama has been very vocal about Barack Obama's support of the LGBT community. According to EqualityGiving.org, "No public statements are known from Cindy McCain in support of our rights."
by Cynthia Rodriguez Resident Bookworm and Book Reviewer Extraordinaire
I've had a crush on Hillary Clinton for years.
I know a lot of women do, but I'm not ashamed to publicly admit it. I'd be her intern anytime. I remember back in the day being at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in NYC seeing her march along with my peeps. I remember thinking way back then she would run for President some day.
Fast forward to 2008. Even before then, when she announced she was running for President of The United States, I think I had an orgasm. When I learned Obama was running for President too, I felt angry and cheated because I felt he was taking the "minority" spotlight away from her. I thought to myself, "No, no, no...this is supposed to be her year, her time! He's gonna fuck it up for her! Damn it!"
The party splitting campaigning took it's toll in many forms. I watched it on a national level, and I observed it on a personal level which spilled all over at my work place. On one hand it was great that so many of us are so involved in the politics of it all, and on the other hand, we had quite the Hillary/Obama rivalry going that at certain moments became a little wicked and out of control to the point that our boss had to intervene and play referee at times.
I went to see Hillary and Bill speak live when they were in the hood. I got involved in her campaign, went to a Hillary voter's party...been there, done that, got the Hillary t-shirt, (I really do have the shirt, and about twelve Hillary buttons. I wonder if I could sell those on E-Bay now, just kidding...maybe a few years from now...) For the most part, I kept track of who was winning what state, either by CNN, radio and/or newspaper. When it was Pennsylvania's turn I stayed up past midnight that evening on Election Day watching CNN for about 6-7 hours straight. I watched the count down for the polls to close like it was New Year's, down to the second, 10-----9-----8... Held tight to my Hillary sign and hooted and hollered. You would've thought I was watching the Super Bowl. All I needed was that foam finger thingy that said "We're #1".
In the end, when she lost, what a devastating blow. I really thought she was gonna get it. That threw me into a political state of depression for weeks. Yes, I take it very personally, thank you very much. It took me a while to get over my grieving period. The only thing that kept me going is the hope she would at least be chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate.
When that didn't happen, it took me right over the edge. I went into an angry frenzy that made me look like I just came out of the movie, "The Exorcist". I needed a couple of days to get over my wrath. At this point, it took the intervention of a couple of co-workers to realize I needed some professional help. Well, maybe not professional, but I needed to do something to turn it around. It was over, and some type of closure was required.
So, I went to my first Obama party. The last night of the Democratic National Convention, to hear him speak. It wasn't as irksome as I imagined it to be, however, I was definitely overwhelmed by the surrounding Obama fever. Part of me felt like a traitor. I felt like I had just cheated on my life long partner with a man. All the shirts, signs, buttons drove me to the bar next door. I figured, I was there. I made it through, and I was supporting the Democratic Party. Although, I realized my residual Hillary feelings were still lingering every time the Clintons were mentioned. I'd "WHOOOO!" all over that, then I'd slouch down in my chair and look around to see if anyone had noticed. I thought for sure those Obama freaks would start flinging their hot wings at me.
The point to all this, I speak to all of you hard core Hillary girls out there, like me. I understand. I feel your pain. I know. However, the bottom line is, don't be stupid. Don't vote for McCain, or vote for him now just because he has a vagina by his side or NOT vote at all, out of spite. That accomplishes nothing. If anything, if Obama gets in and messes up, we can always say, "Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Hillary".
I want you to watch this video so bad. I looked all over the internet for a transcript yesterday and couldn't find one, so I lovingly typed up a transcript for y'all [below]. Sheesh!
The next time some conservative tells you that liberals don't have a clue about foreign policy, please, for me, kindly shove this all up in their faces. Say it with me now: "that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism!" Transcript: Barack Obama: We had a productive discussion on the challenges facing our nation. I’m grateful to these distinguished men and women who will be advising me in the months to come. As we discussed in the meeting, we face serious challenges to our security. Our nation is fighting two wars. There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world’s most dangerous weapons risk falling into the hands of our enemies. That’s why the single greatest priority of my presidency will be doing anything and everything that is needed to keep the American people safe.
In the face of these real threats we can’t afford another campaign in which national security issues and the truth are distorted and manipulated. So let me take this opportunity to just talk about some of the attacks that the McCain campaign has made in the last few days. For all his talk about civil debate and bipartisanship, Senator McCain has shown that he is going to use predictable, petty, and divisive attacks to try to score a few political points on national security--and if these attacks seem familiar, it’s because they are. They come from the same tired political playbook that George Bush and Karl Rove have used for eight years. It is a political strategy that has been used to prop up policies that have completely failed.
First, let me say a few words about Guantanamo. By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been a failure. Over the course of nearly seven years there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has just been one conviction for material support of terrorism; meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism and undermined our most basic values. So make no mistake, we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this issue.
My approach is guided by a simple premise. I have confidence that our system of justice and that our traditions of rule of law are strong enough to deal with terrorists; Senator McCain does not. That is not the same as suggesting that we should give detainees the full privileges that are afforded American citizens. I never said that, the Supreme Court never said that, and I would never do that as President of the United States. So either Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t understand what the Court decided, or they are distorting my position.
I’ve made the same arguments as Republicans like Arlen Specter, countless generals and national security experts, and the largely Republican-appointed Supreme Court of the United States of America--which is that we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism. We need not choose between our most deeply held values and keeping this nation safe; that is a false choice, and I completely reject it.
In their attempt to distort my position Senator McCain’s campaign has said I want to pursue a “law enforcement approach” when it comes to terrorism. This is demonstrably false since I have laid out a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that includes military force, intelligence operations, financial sanctions, and diplomatic action, but the fact that I want to abide by the United States’ Constitution, they say, shows that I am “trapped in a pre-9/11 mindset.”
Well, I refuse to be lectured on national security by the people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon; let’s talk about 9/11.
The people who are responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice; they are Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and their sponsors, the Taleban. They were in Afghanistan, and yet George Bush, with the support of John McCain, decided in 2002 that they should take their eye off the ball—off Afghanistan—so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush, again with the support of John McCain, had to hype up the threat of Saddam Hussein and make false promises that we would be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people and took us into a misguided war, and here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership--the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11--have a safe haven in northwest Pakistan where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world; that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
We had Al Qaeda and Taleban on the run back in 2002, but then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that,
“Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.”
I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan.
Our military is badly overstretched as a consequence of Iraq. We have nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq. We may have no more than one or two brigades that can function outside of Iraq as a consequence of our current position. Many of the troops there are on their second, third, or fourth tours of duty; meanwhile, Afghanistan is sliding towards chaos and risks turning into a narcoterrorist state. The Taleban is on the offensive in the South. A recent Taleban prison outbreak in QandahÄr freed hundreds of militants and underscored the volatile situation on the ground. The coalition’s casualties in Afghanistan last month were actually higher than they were in Iraq; that’s the result of the Bush/McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
We need to take more resources and put them into Afghanistan. I’ve been arguing for this since 2002 when I said that we should finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban instead of going into Iraq. I’ve called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. I’ve also called for at least $1b in nonmilitary assistance each year, and I’ve repeatedly challenged George Bush and John McCain’s refusal to hold the Pakistani government accountable for the inability to crack down on Al Qaeda and the Taleban operating within their borders--because we are not going to get Afghanistan right until we get our Pakistan policy right.
So I am happy to talk about 9/11, and I am happy to talk about the choice that we have in this election. We can: listen to the other side and make the same false arguments about why we need to violate our Constitution; not explain to the American people what exactly we’re doing; stay in Iraq indefinitely; build permanent bases in a country that doesn’t want them; not disclose exactly what’s in the negotiations so we end up learning about them from the Iraqi foreign minister because our own President doesn’t explain it to the American people; and keep short-changing our efforts in Afghanistan and our ability to deal with nearly every other national security challenge that we face. That’s one option. We can do that.
Or, we can finally end this disastrous approach to national security because the record shows that George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. Their approach has failed. Because of their policies we are less safe, less respected, less able to lead the world.
That’s why I believe it’s time to turn the page. It’s time to end the war in Iraq responsibly. It’s time to stop wasting time and start putting away terrorists. It’s time to finally take out Al Qaeda’s top leadership and to finish the fight in Afghanistan. It’s time to restore our standing in the world so we can once again lead.
That’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.
Basically, the Obama people have to argue that they’re being 'inclusive' by giving a platform to this terrible weenie [. . .]. Remember how Bill Clinton had a very 'inclusive' inauguration, with Maya Angelou and snake-charmers and NAMBLA all doing peyote and dancing around Ronald Reagan’s funeral pyre? That’s basically what Obama’s inauguration will be like, only with a diverse array of hairfaced hobbit cretins rubbing their nipples while they fantasize about gay marrying Jesus.
