Drama Over Obama Inaugural Prayer

[Pangloss]

Been wondering how President Obama will be able to appeal to religious conservatives while keeping gays in his corner? This is a good example of it right here. He's appointed Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church to deliver the invocation prayer at his inauguration. Politics forum members may recall Warren as hosting one of the early debates (actually two separate interviews with Obama and McCain). Warren is considered a more moderate and modern christian conservative, supporting issues such as the fight against global warming. But he is opposed to gay marriage and supported California's Proposition 8. The move also angered some on the right who feel Warren is making a mistake.

 

Surprised? Obama wasn't. Repeating himself, he reminded them of what they signed up for when they voted for him:

 

"We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common," Obama said during a news conference.

 

Exactly right. Fighting partisanship isn't accomplished through appeasement. Rabble-rousing special interest groups are getting a subtle wake-up call with this move.

 

Good for him.

[iNow]

I think the bigger point is that such a large and growing number of citizens are tired of our nation and constitution getting so overrun with religiot ideas. The founding principles of our nation are not judeo-christian, and the writings of those who were involved in the process of writing our constitution made it abundantly clear that the government and religion should be seperate.

 

In England, the exception is the politician who speaks openly about religion. Most (whether secular or not) know that religion has no place in the governance of a free nation. I just wish that more people in the US would realize this.

 

Obama is welcome to have Rick Warren host a personal service for him, his family, and his friends in celebration, but to have Warren playing such a prominent role at the inauguration I think is a smack in the face to those of us who truly want to see our nation prosper and get beyond the iron age fairy tales and superstitions.

[Mokele]

Since when is basic human rights a "special interest group"?

 

Warren is a bigot, and should be treated as such.

[ParanoiA]

Warren has more class than most who stand against him. He served food to those protesting him for crying out loud.

 

Warren and Obama are putting actions to our words. They listened and now the partisan idealogues are whining because they want politics as usual. They want the never ending fight that gets personal and stays personal. They like the childish petty bullshit we had for 2 years up to the election - they want that to continue indefinitely.

 

Obama appears to be walking the walk. Staying true to his word that our differences are philosophical, not personal. And it appears some here have something to learn from that.

 

Warren is a class act. He treated Obama quite respectfully as host of the Saddleback forum and you can tell he appreciated it. It was the most beneficial, substative, civil "debate" of all of them.

[Mokele]

Warren has more class than most who stand against him. He served food to those protesting him for crying out loud.

 

Bullshit. That's like saying "I'm not a racist, because I gave my slaves plenty of food!" He actively and openly worked to deny people their rights, period. If you think that's 'classy', you need to seriously rethink your social standards.

 

They want the never ending fight that gets personal and stays personal.

 

Denying people their basic human rights IS personal.

 

This isn't about steel tariffs or income tax, it's about unjust laws that inflict suffering and deny the rights of people for absolutely no good reason.

 

Tell me how being denied a chance to visit your dying partner of 20 years ISN'T 'personal'. How being evicted from your apartment because of who you are ISN'T personal.

 

Discrimination IS PERSONAL, period. That you try to make it into an abstract political cause simply shows your total lack of understanding of the issue, and especially shows that you have zero actual experience with it, direct or indirect.

 

So, by your logic, you would support Obama inviting a Neo-Nazi to speak at inauguration? After all, hate is hate.

 

Godwined. Time to close this rampant example of hetero-privilege.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Bullshit. That's like saying "I'm not a racist, because I gave my slaves plenty of food!" He actively and openly worked to deny people their rights, period. If you think that's 'classy', you need to seriously rethink your social standards.

 

Bullshit. He's not anti-homosexual, he's anti gay marriage. He still openly works for what he believes in. He believes you are just as much of a bigot as you believe he is. Yet, he has the class to be civil about it and keep it philosophical. Tell me what "rights" you think he's trying to deny.

 

Denying people their basic human rights IS personal.

 

By that logic then, all of politics is personal. Tell me how that works for you. Tell me how society achieves progress by ridiculing them into it. How many hearts and minds have you changed by demonizing them and dismissing their concerns? All that does is allow you a channel for the emotive component, which has no place in sound reason. You know this already.

 

Tell me how being denied a chance to visit your dying partner of 20 years ISN'T 'personal'. How being evicted from your apartment because of who you are ISN'T personal.

 

Tell me how standing against state recognized gay marriage is responsible for being denied a chance to visit your dying partner of 20 years. That sounds like hospital policy, not government. Why do those bigots get a free pass for exercising prejudice? I don't believe Warren would support that policy at all, but I have no proof. Only his character.

 

So, by your logic, you would support Obama inviting a Neo-Nazi to speak at inauguration? After all, hate is hate.

 

Yes I would. Particularly if there were a prolific neo-nazi movement here to deal with and some kind of middle ground was reached between them and Obama to achieve this. That's how you destroy an intolerant enemy. You're proposing more of a George Bush solution where you exercise as much prejudice to irradicate prejudice - which in turn creates more prejudice. Try changing their minds with clinical, cold logic and leading by example. Demonstrating hypocrisy by being a hypocrite isn't going to change anyone's mind and will fuel their bigotry movement.

[Mokele]

He's not anti-homosexual, he's anti gay marriage.

 

Same thing. "I'm not against black people, I just don't think they should have their freedom!"

 

He still openly works for what he believes in.

 

So does the KKK.

 

He believes you are just as much of a bigot as you believe he is.

 

Then he's a moron, too. My position doesn't deny anything to anyone. Don't want to marry a person of the same sex? Fine! Want to marry them? Great!

 

His position is the one that restricts behavior and rights, not mine. Mine gives rights, to EVERYONE.

 

Tell me what "rights" you think he's trying to deny.

 

Here's a SHORT list. The actual list has 1042 items at last tally.

 

# The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

# The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

# The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

# The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

# The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

# Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

# The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

# The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job

 

By that logic then, all of politics is personal.

 

Since when is steel tariffs about basic human rights?

 

Tell me how that works for you. Tell me how society achieves progress by ridiculing them into it. How many hearts and minds have you changed by demonizing them and dismissing their concerns? All that does is allow you a channel for the emotive component, which has no place in sound reason. You know this already.

 

Yeah, telling people off and making a spectacle never works. Rosa Parks, all those sit-ins and marches of the 60's, those never accomplished anything.

 

These people need to see that this is NOT some academic, political issue. They need to see that REAL PEOPLE are being hurt by this. They need to see that their friends, neighbors, co-workers, parents, children, bosses, and employees are being hurt by this.

 

"Stop making a fuss" has been a line used to silence advocates of minority rights since the concept even existed. And it's never worked.

 

Tell me how standing against state recognized gay marriage is responsible for being denied a chance to visit your dying partner of 20 years. That sounds like hospital policy, not government.

 

And what if hospital policy is "only immediate family outside of visiting hours"? If you're just their partner of 20 years, but cannot get married, you're not on that list, cannot challenge it, and could be arrested for trespassing if you defy it. Even if you're straight and unmarried, the 'common law marriage' comes into effect, and you get in.

 

By denying marriage, the government allows any law or rule which has special conditions for marriage to discriminate against gay couples. It may be "just a word", but that word is used in many, many laws and rules.

 

I don't believe Warren would support that policy at all, but I have no proof. Only his character.

 

His stance on Prop. 8 makes his character worthless, period.

 

Yes I would. Particularly if there were a prolific neo-nazi movement here to deal with and some kind of middle ground was reached between them and Obama to achieve this.

 

Are you honestly saying that there even IS a middle ground with a group whose ideals are diametrically opposed to the very concepts of freedom and equality this nation was founded upon?

 

Some groups simply are contrary to every concept this country stands for. Neo-Nazis and the American Taliban both fall into this category.

 

You're proposing more of a George Bush solution where you exercise as much prejudice to irradicate prejudice - which in turn creates more prejudice.

 

How am I creating prejudice? I'm not suggesting denying anyone rights, I'm suggesting they be called out for their reprehensible views. I'm not suggesting we throw Warren in jail, I'm suggesting that Obama change his pick because Warren is diametrically opposed to the fundamental basis of the very Constitution Obama is going to swear to uphold.

 

Try changing their minds with clinical, cold logic and leading by example.

 

Neither have ever worked on an appreciable scale. Show me any example.

 

People react mostly out of emotion, not logic. The academic discourse on why black people should get equal rights had far less impact than the TV images of people getting sprayed with firehoses or beaten by police. MLK's speeches didn't contain cold, logical, reasoned arguments, they contained emotional appeals to a sense of equality.

 

Gay rights has not been advanced by cold logic. It was advanced by the Stonewall riots, where we said "we are not taking this shit anymore". It was advanced thousands of gay men and women standing up to be counted, and refusing to live a lie. It was advanced by people hearing about the crimes against these people, looking at their own gay friends or kids, and realizing it could happen to them too.

 

Rights are gained by winning people's hearts, because, as Warren clearly demonstrates, most people don't even use their minds.

 

Demonstrating hypocrisy by being a hypocrite isn't going to change anyone's mind and will fuel their bigotry movement.

 

How is anything I've said hypocritical? All I've advocated is calling people out on their bigotry, nothing more.

 

And funny, but it seems as if the tactics I've endorsed are working, considering we've gone from gay marriage being a ridiculous non-issue to being supported by well over a third of the country in less than 30 years.

 

Studies have shown the strongest predictor of support for gay rights isn't what political pundits someone listens to, but whether they know any out gay people, and how close those people are. Once they see real people being really affected, they see the hate for what it is.

 

Mokele

 

# The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

 

I would like to note that this one is not merely academic. Right now, my wife is going through the process of immigrating to the US, a process made MUCH easier by the fact that we're married.

 

It has not escaped the attention of either of us that, if this were a gay relationship, our love, which we treasure above all else, would have withered and died of the ocean between us, because *without* this spousal immigration, it would have been impossible for either of us to be with the other.

 

The most precious love in my life has been saved merely by the fluke chance that we have different genitals. The mere possibility that a similar couple who just happen to have the same genitals would be denied and would break up as a result is a potent reminder to us of the cost of these laws.

 

So stop before you reply again and actually *think*. Think about how these "trivial" laws actually affect people, think of the human cost, and put yourself in their shoes.

 

This is not academic. This is peoples lives.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Then he's a moron' date=' too. My position doesn't deny anything to anyone. Don't want to marry a person of the same sex? Fine! Want to marry them? Great!

 

His position is the one that restricts behavior and rights, not mine. Mine gives rights, to EVERYONE.[/quote']

 

Wrong, your position gives the government authority to redefine words and concepts that have been consistent for over 5,000 years. And you want to force me to accept this nonsense. That's a violation of my rights. I have a right to be protected by laws that don't change by lexicographers, but rather change by legislators. I'd prefer society not be allowed to change the definition of say, the word "property", to exclude my home and currency and thus wipe out all of my possessions. Retroactive redefinition is nonsense.

 

This is akin to folks who think it isn't fair that an oval not be allowed to be a circle. You don't get to redefine what a circle is just because you think ovals are being unjustly bigoted. Instead, the correct focus would be to concentrate on those ignorant laws that empower circles and not ovals.

 

Here's a SHORT list. The actual list has 1042 items at last tally.

 

Ok, is this list a summary of his actual beliefs, or is this one of those partisan hack jobs where they "infer" these beliefs based on his stance against gay marriage, support for civil unions?

 

Here's why I ask:

 

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html

 

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it' date= I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.]

 

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

 

I'm far more liberal than Rick, and probably you, on civil unions. Some of us against the redefinition of marriage, and even further the whole notion of government intrusion of these concepts, is based on an insistance for logical consistency. We see a philosophical conflict in redefining marriage as well as denying the same rights to gay partnerships as marriage. I'm caught between both because both are wrong.

 

They are not justified in not recognizing gay partnerships, familial partnerships, poly partnerships with the same rights and privilege. And you are not justified in redefining the lexicon to gain this right and privilege.

 

Since when is steel tariffs about basic human rights?

 

Steel tariffs effect my property, which is a right that is even more spelled out and insisted upon than state recognized partnerships. It effects far more people and directly effects our supply of resources to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves.

 

These people need to see that this is NOT some academic' date=' political issue. They need to see that REAL PEOPLE are being hurt by this. They need to see that their friends, neighbors, co-workers, parents, children, bosses, and employees are being hurt by this.

 

"Stop making a fuss" has been a line used to silence advocates of minority rights since the concept even existed. And it's never worked.[/quote']

 

A fuss should be made, and the Rosa Parks, sit-ins are terrific, and Martin King's insistance on civil demonstration quite appropriate - and you will get their sympathetic ear to those people being hurt by their philosophical stands, but only if you're not ridiculing them. It's just human nature. Don't argue with me about it, argue with our physiology. People just don't respond positively to uncivil discourse. Sorry, but that's life. Changing their minds is best and quickest, but you can keep chugging along with ridicule and prejudice if it makes you feel better.

 

His stance on Prop. 8 makes his character worthless, period.

 

Interesting. His stance on Global Warming, global poverty and disease and support of literacy and education around the globe would seem to counter your claim of worthlessness. I suppose if his position were driven by hate, I could see it, but I see no evidence of hate. I just see evidence of philosophical difference of opinion. Obama sees that too, and is capitalizing off of it the way a responsible statesman should.

 

Are you honestly saying that there even IS a middle ground with a group whose ideals are diametrically opposed to the very concepts of freedom and equality this nation was founded upon?

 

Some groups simply are contrary to every concept this country stands for. Neo-Nazis and the American Taliban both fall into this category.

 

For one' date=' if you're going to pimp any notion of tolerance, then you must back it up by not being a hypocrite. There is no good hatred. There is no healthy bigotry. So you show neo-nazi's how not to hate by not hating - starting with them.

 

[i']If [/i]there was middle ground, and if they had a large movement in this country, like christianity, then that would mean we must deal with them, like it or not. Now, do you do it like George Bush and piss them off with prejudicial militant behavior thereby fueling their recruitment and validating their propoganda? Or do you do it by convincing them that they're wrong by leading by example, eschewing militant discourse in favor of civil logical primacy?

 

How am I creating prejudice? I'm not suggesting denying anyone rights, I'm suggesting they be called out for their reprehensible views. I'm not suggesting we throw Warren in jail, I'm suggesting that Obama change his pick because Warren is diametrically opposed to the fundamental basis of the very Constitution Obama is going to swear to uphold.

 

You're choosing the short-sighted partisan view that obsesses over details in opposition, and it appears prejudicial. You already admitted it's personal, and you don't care how about any middle ground that they share. You have no apparent interest in any healthy discourse with his position and you refuse to divorce emotion from your arguments so I'm highly suspicious of your intentions. It's seems quite clear your mind is made up about him, despite his positive efforts around the globe and his demonstration of fair treatment with Obama, and that reminds me a bit much of the current administration.

 

In the face of contrary evidence, you insist his position is based on hatred. I can only conclude that prejudice would blind a person so.

 

So stop before you reply again and actually *think*. Think about how these "trivial" laws actually affect people' date=' think of the human cost, and put yourself in their shoes.

 

This is not academic. This is peoples lives.[/quote']

 

I am putting myself in the shoes of generations past you and I, Mokele. That's the difference between us. I insist on philosophical consistency with my eye on the long term goal. You're preoccupied with short term gains. You don't care how you gain right or privilege, only that you gain it.

 

It is my view that type of thinking is what gets us into silly legal positions like this. They did not consider the philosophical ramifications of privileging marriage to the extent they have in our law books and look what we have now. So what's your answer? To continue the same. Take the dictionary to court, establish legal precedents that jeopardize the integrity of the constitution and all that it protects in the name of fighting against the bigots. It may seem noble to you, but it seems careless and selfish to me.

 

It's the most common moral to the human condition: To defeat your enemy, without becoming your enemy. Don't destroy your temple trying kill the roaches.

 

Neither have ever worked on an appreciable scale. Show me any example.

 

People react mostly out of emotion' date=' not logic. The academic discourse on why black people should get equal rights had far less impact than the TV images of people getting sprayed with firehoses or beaten by police. MLK's speeches didn't contain cold, logical, reasoned arguments, they contained emotional appeals to a sense of equality.[/quote']

 

Well, sure, I'll concede that passion fuels initiative. But MLK's speeches also didn't promote bigotry. He didn't propose that they act like the racist white community and reject them the way they had been rejected. You're proposing to reject and dismiss any civil discourse with Warren because of your prejudice view. I don't see how you can pretend as if the civil rights movement supports that method.

 

But you're right, purely cold logic didn't change anything except for those minds that insist on critical thinking and sound logic. I would argue, however, that critical thinking drove those who in turn impassioned that logic to mobilize this level of healthy emotional appeal on the masses. Without sound reasoning, the passion would have been worthless.

 

How is anything I've said hypocritical? All I've advocated is calling people out on their bigotry' date=' nothing more.

 

And funny, but it seems as if the tactics I've endorsed are working, considering we've gone from gay marriage being a ridiculous non-issue to being supported by well over a third of the country in less than 30 years.[/quote']

 

No, you have not stopped at calling out Warren's bigotry, you want to reject Warren altogether and dismiss any common goal which is entirely 180 degrees out from what the american people voted for. Debate is good, militant discourse is not. Society can only benefit from evolving to a sense of disagreement without being disagreeable, like Obama is practicing.

 

And yes, the american sheeple are quite pliable to the repeated message over and over again. Say it enough, it becomes true. Again, another Bush tactic. Creepy that anyone would relish in such perversion of our constitution. Once we get this precedence of retroactive vocabulary redefinition, I wonder if the religious right will strike back and serve you with your own dish. I wonder also how much the rest of us will suffer at the expense of both sides fighting seeming noble battles by thoughtless means, without regard to collateral damage.

 

Studies have shown the strongest predictor of support for gay rights isn't what political pundits someone listens to, but whether they know any out gay people, and how close those people are. Once they see real people being really affected, they see the hate for what it is.

 

This is true. Too bad it doesn't help them focus their efforts on changing that, rather than lexicon legislation.

 

And to echo waitforufo, why is Obama getting a free pass for holding the exact same view as Warren? Why aren't you dismissing Obama altogether for being a bigot? He's in lock step with your claim of keeping you from visiting your dying partner of 20 years.

Edited December 19, 2008 by ParanoiA

[waitforufo]

Why does it surprise anyone that President Elect Obama would pick a minister to give is inaugural invocation who holds and promotes the same opinion that the President Elect holds regarding gay marriage? Did you not listen to the man when he was running for office? If you missed it, just goggle "Obama Gay Marriage." You will find plenty of YouTube links you may have perhaps missed. Did you really believe that the man was simply pandering for votes? Do you really hold Mr. Obama in such low regard?

 

His stance on Prop. 8 makes his character worthless, period.

 

Does this then also mean that Mr. Obama's character is worthless? Please explain how it does not.

 

Please note that I personally believe gay marriage should be legal. I have stated this opinion often in several different science forum topics.

[Pangloss]

Great points from Waitforufo above. I understand where you're coming from Mokele, but if you thought religious influence on government was going to disappear from American life just because Obama got elected, you were mistaken. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but so are others entitled to theirs -- this is a democracy, and religion will play a role because that's what people want.

 

And it's not just a matter of Obama's personal opinion about religion, either. It's his entire philosophy of compromise. This is how things are going to be on ALL issues. Unilateralism has no place in Obama's America.

 

We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common.

 

He's talking to you, Mokele, e.g. your branding Warren as a bigot above. But is it really so bad to say that divisiveness is a thing of the past, and in the future we will work together towards common goals? Isn't it better to do that than to label each other bad names?

[john5746]

Well, it seems Obama also has Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay marriage speaking after Warren. Having Warren there is a small olive branch to the evangelicals - at least it isn't a cabinet position. I guess if those on the right can deal with people who are pro-choice, the left have to tolerate this as well. Of course people should protest and make noise, that is not being intolerant.

 

 

Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.]

 

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

 

Oh give me a break! That same old tired consistent argument? Yeah, I can see that coming from an idiot who thinks life hasn't evolved. Marriage has never included incest, pedophilia, polygamy and tribe membership? Don't even get me started on divorce. I realize that marriage may never have been intended for same sex partners, but to think this concept has not evolved and been influenced through various cultures is very naive.

 

I happen to agree with Warren in terms of incest, polygamy and pedophilia, but not because they fly in the face of some 5000 year old definition. I argue based on how I think they will influence society. As society changes, we revisit these questions and even redefine words and meaning. Yes, language is not static. We learn, adapt and move on.

 

 

PS - I am sending a letter via change.gov telling Obama that I would love to see him REACH OUT to the atheist/secular community by having an atheist "moral" guide or having one give a speech at his NEXT inauguration!

Edited December 19, 2008 by john5746
added the PS

[bascule]

Well, just to give my two cents... I don't have a problem with an invocation per se. But...

 

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

 

Wouldn't an invocation mentioning "god" both favor monotheistic religions over those who are polytheistic or atheistic?

 

This sort of thing has been happening since the country was founded, e.g. with the appointment of the first Congressional chaplains, which James Madison disliked.

 

I think it'd be great if our government could carry about business like inaugurating a new president without the need to invoke "god" when doing so. I think invoking "god" as part of routine government business goes against at least the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

[ParanoiA]

I argue based on how I think they will influence society. As society changes, we revisit these questions and even redefine words and meaning. Yes, language is not static. We learn, adapt and move on.

 

And that is entirely reasonable and expected, as long as we don't retroactively apply these new definitions to the constitution. I don't like the idea of one day society redefines nuclear weapons as "guns" and so we all have a right to bear nuclear weapons now, protected by the second amendment, woohoo!!

 

I think it'd be great if our government could carry about business like inaugurating a new president without the need to invoke "god" when doing so. I think invoking "god" as part of routine government business goes against at least the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

 

Amen...(sorry). Seriously, that's exactly right. In fact, why don't we question its effectiveness on atheists? Surely swearing on the bible doesn't effect them so you'd think that would be enough to cause one to at least question how or what they would swear to.

[Mokele]

Ok, there's just way too much stuff to respond to line-by-line, but I'll hit some of the big points, and try to explain myself a bit better.

 

First, there is no "5000 year old definition of marriage". Back then, you were basically purchasing a female slave. And frequently, you could,purchase *several*. Romantic love as a basis didn't even enter the picture until the middle ages. Divorce was unknown until the 1500s. The idea of women even having a say didn't crop up until the 1700s, and that a minimal power at best. Interracial marriage was universally forbidden (and illegal in the US) until the 1960's. So that entire argument is bullshit.

 

So is the argument that allowing gay marriage *forces* others to recognize it. You're free to treat gay couples with as much disdain as you want, as you are women, blacks, jews, etc. But you cannot legally discriminate or take actions that deprive them of their rights.

 

Remember, all of civilization is built on a single principle - we trade freedoms and agree to rules in exchange for the benefits of cooperation and assurance that others will also live by those rules. If you systematically deny any group fully legal rights, you are taking not just their "rights", but the very benefits that make the whole 'civilization' thing even worth it in the first place.

 

Finally, this is not Magic Libertarian Fairy Land where the God of The Free Market will instantly change everything to make it perfect forever. You want to work towards your long term goal, fine. But TIME DOES MATTER, because time=suffering. Every year we delay is more needless suffering. How will allowing gay marriage impede your goals, anyway? It won't. All it will do is allow a group of people to have basic human rights NOW, and you can sort it out later when you finally get your wished-for world (which, IMHO, will be *never*).

 

 

 

 

Back to the subject at hand, the reason "people like me" are making a fuss about this is simple - we don't believe we should be forced to 'make do' and 'sit quietly and behave'. We have every right to hold our suffering in the faces of those who oppose us and demand they account for themselves.

 

There is a time for dialog and discourse, and a time for compromise. But being willing to compromise does NOT mean turning a blind eye to someone's faults, nor does it mean avoiding those faults like a fart in the elevator that nobody wants to own up to. Warren should not be given a pass on his homophobia just because he's done other good things. This goes for Obama too - nobody has forgotten his willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pyxie, and he's been repeatedly questioned about it by the gay community.

 

And finally, there is NO "philosophical difference". There is no justification, no rationale against gay marriage which does not, under scrutiny, end up with "gays are icky" (general opposition to marriage on libertarian terms is a different matter). Hidden in the cloak of religion or not, it's always the same, and it's always hatred. Find me any example to the contrary if you can, but I guarantee you won't.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

Surely swearing on the bible doesn't effect them so you'd think that would be enough to cause one to at least question how or what they would swear to.

 

The Constitution would be a good choice

[waitforufo]

I think it'd be great if our government could carry about business like inaugurating a new president without the need to invoke "god" when doing so. I think invoking "god" as part of routine government business goes against at least the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

 

The constitution only requires that the president elect recite the oath of office before witnesses.

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

There is no requirement for public ceremony, invocation, or for the President Elect to touch the Bible while giving the oath. These are simply traditions.

 

In high school I was taught that during Washington's first inauguration, there was no Bible available when the time came for the President to say the oath. The proceeding was delayed until they found one. This however may be a myth.

 

One might ask to whom is the President Elect swearing or affirming this oath, but the swearing or affirming is required.

 

His [Warren's]stance on Prop. 8 makes his character worthless, period.

 

Warren should not be given a pass on his homophobia just because he's done other good things. This goes for Obama too - nobody has forgotten his willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pyxie, and he's been repeatedly questioned about it by the gay community.

 

And finally, there is NO "philosophical difference". There is no justification, no rationale against gay marriage which does not, under scrutiny, end up with "gays are icky" (general opposition to marriage on libertarian terms is a different matter). Hidden in the cloak of religion or not, it's always the same, and it's always hatred. Find me any example to the contrary if you can, but I guarantee you won't.

 

Does this then also mean that Mr. Obama's character is worthless? Please explain how it does not.

 

So your answer is yes, Mr. Obama also has a worthless character?

 

You also mention that Mr. Obama's "willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pixie." This is obviously rhetoric. Can I assume that you actually believe that both his stated Christian religious belief and his position against gay marriage were actually vote pandering? Did you really expect him to later fall back on his true hidden ideals once he was in office? I hope those that hold such a sentiment are wrong, because Mr. Obama really would have a worthless character if this were true. Personally, I question the character of anyone who believed Mr. Obama was just pandering for votes.

 

 

You want to work towards your long term goal, fine. But TIME DOES MATTER, because time=suffering. Every year we delay is more needless suffering. How will allowing gay marriage impede your goals, anyway? It won't. All it will do is allow a group of people to have basic human rights NOW, and you can sort it out later when you finally get your wished-for world (which, IMHO, will be *never*).

 

Haste can also lead to suffering. Look at the long list of people who gave their lives in the civil rights cause. Their sacrifice made Mr. Obama's election possible. Too much haste can lead to backlash, and such backlash can last a long time.

[Mokele]

So your answer is yes, Mr. Obama also has a worthless character?

 

Perhaps I overstated, but it *does* cast a pall over his loft claims and otherwise good image. It's like finding out the nice little old lady next door has been poisoning cats.

 

I know that personally, I cannot be friends with someone who does not support gay marriage - I can tolerate difference, but I will not willingly associate with a bigot. It's a black mark on their character that I cannot ignore, and which should not be ignored.

 

You also mention that Mr. Obama's "willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pixie." This is obviously rhetoric. Can I assume that you actually believe that both his stated Christian religious belief and his position against gay marriage were actually vote pandering? Did you really expect him to later fall back on his true hidden ideals once he was in office? I hope those that hold such a sentiment are wrong, because Mr. Obama really would have a worthless character if this were true. Personally, I question the character of anyone who believed Mr. Obama was just pandering for votes.

 

No, I think he's genuine, which makes me question his intellect.

 

Haste can also lead to suffering. Look at the long list of people who gave their lives in the civil rights cause. Their sacrifice made Mr. Obama's election possible. Too much haste can lead to backlash, and such backlash can last a long time.

 

So, what would you do? Sit back and just wait, ignoring the suffering all around you? There will *never* be time when backlash won't occur, or there will be no sacrifice. Such possibilities aren't an excuse for inaction, they're an excuse to up the funding of the police force and demand the equal protection under the law given to us in the Bill of Rights.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps I overstated, but it *does* cast a pall over his loft claims and otherwise good image. It's like finding out the nice little old lady next door has been poisoning cats.

 

I know that personally, I cannot be friends with someone who does not support gay marriage - I can tolerate difference, but I will not willingly associate with a bigot. It's a black mark on their character that I cannot ignore, and which should not be ignored.

 

 

 

No, I think he's genuine, which makes me question his intellect.

 

 

 

So, what would you do? Sit back and just wait, ignoring the suffering all around you? There will *never* be time when backlash won't occur, or there will be no sacrifice. Such possibilities aren't an excuse for inaction, they're an excuse to up the funding of the police force and demand the equal protection under the law given to us in the Bill of Rights.

 

As I have said, I do believe the privilege of marriage should be extended to include gay couples. I can see nothing but societal benefits from making such an extension. No, I do not believe people should just wait ignoring the suffering all around them. There have been protests and there should be more protests. Acts of passive resistance should also be used. Perhaps long lines of gay couples applying for marriage licenses only to be denied would make a nice news segment. Such a segment could also include hetro couples complaining about not being able to get a license because of the long lines.

 

I believe the people of California can be persuaded to overturn Prop. 8. When they are persuaded, meaningful change will take place. This in my opinion would be better than a court decision, not that court decisions are always bad. It was a court decision that created Prop. 8. The success of Prop 8 will, I hope, embolden people to push for real change. That real change will be convincing the people to support gay marriage.

 

I do hope that President Obama has a true epiphany and then uses his bully pulpit of his office to promote equal rights for gays. That epiphany will likely only occur through the persuasion of the gay rights movement. If he does have such an epiphany, he will pay politically for it. There will be lots of talk about flip flopping and vote pandering. Politicians however, like all of us, should be provided the opportunity to grow morally and intellectually. Until that growth occurs, he should stick by his convictions. When it does occur, since his new position will be contrary to his previous political position, he should take time to explain it to the people.

[Pangloss]

So, what would you do? Sit back and just wait, ignoring the suffering all around you? There will *never* be time when backlash won't occur, or there will be no sacrifice. Such possibilities aren't an excuse for inaction, they're an excuse to up the funding of the police force and demand the equal protection under the law given to us in the Bill of Rights.

 

Just out of idle curiosity, have you ever considered whether the choice to allow slavery to continue in the new United States might have been a GOOD decision by the Founding Fathers?

 

I'm not saying it was -- I don't think anyone can really say one way or the other, because there's no way to know what would have happened had the abolitionists put their feet down. But it's safe to say that there's a strong chance that there wouldn't have been a country at all, and that slavery might have continued in the South long past 1865. Those are, at the very least, reasonable conjectures.

 

Can't the same reasoning be applied here? How have the podium-pounding unilateral demands by both sides worked so far? Won a lot of hearts and minds, have they? Resolved the issue? Obviously not.

 

I think that people are going to find that as Obama sits both sides down and makes them listen to one another that there's going to be a more rapid change of heart on this subject than you might think. People respond a lot better to "I respect that, now here is what I think" than they do to "you're wrong, now do it my way". And while there are many demagogues on both sides of this issue, the general public has a funny way of thinking for itself sometimes.

[iNow]

Can't the same reasoning be applied here? How have the podium-pounding unilateral demands by both sides worked so far? Won a lot of hearts and minds, have they? Resolved the issue? Obviously not.

I really don't see anything obvious about this, and (in fact) completely disagree. I think these pounded podiums have caused a certain natural selection to occur. Groups were either pushed to accept or reject the idea of gay marriage based on the strength and passion of the arguments.

 

ALL indicators I've seen suggest that those in support of same sex marriage are winning a lop-sided battle against those who oppose it. There are not a lot of people "migrating" to the "against gay marriage" side based on argument. If they are against gay marriage, (I speculate that) 99% of the time it's because of conditioning earlier in life and is an emergent property of being taught to be against gay marriage (whether by parents, pastors, or otherwise)... basically, you start out against gay marriage. You don't change your mind after previously supporting it.

 

People aren't "against gay marriage" because it's an argument with any merit, and that's the point. Natural selection on this issue is being explicitly driven by the pounded podium. No more sitting on the fence. It's time to choose a side and move forward, people!

 

 

With all of that said, I definitely agreed with the tone and suggestions in your final paragraph, and think that you and I and Mokele and also ParanoiA all agree that there should be no such restriction on gays (or same sex couples) being allowed to marry. We just approach that goal on slightly different paths and following our own compasses.

 

 

Back on topic though, nobody is saying Warren should not be allowed to speak. We're just reacting to the decision to invite him.

[Pangloss]

ALL indicators I've seen suggest that those in support of same sex marriage are winning a lop-sided battle against those who oppose it. There are not a lot of people "migrating" to the "against gay marriage" side based on argument. If they are against gay marriage, (I speculate that) 99% of the time it's because of conditioning earlier in life and is an emergent property of being taught to be against gay marriage (whether by parents, pastors, or otherwise)... basically, you start out against gay marriage. You don't change your mind after previously supporting it.

 

Would that "all" include Proposition 8 and similar measures that just passed in two other states? Don't count our chickens before they're hatched.

 

But you have a point there, and I can't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying. Perhaps that podium-pounding has been more of a factor than I had considered.

 

I still think there's a lot to be said for compromise and consideration of all points of view. I think we have to be very careful to educate the not-quite-sleeping-again-but-somewhat-droopy-eyed conservative dragon and not jab it back into emotional reaction again. Given a choice between "giving Rush Limbaugh talking points" and "not giving Rush Limbaugh talking points", may we please select the latter?

 

Back on topic though, nobody is saying Warren should not be allowed to speak. We're just reacting to the decision to invite him.

 

Yah, I get it. No worries.

[ParanoiA]

So is the argument that allowing gay marriage *forces* others to recognize it. You're free to treat gay couples with as much disdain as you want, as you are women, blacks, jews, etc. But you cannot legally discriminate or take actions that deprive them of their rights.

 

Wait a minute...what right are you trying to attain then if you are not forcing others to recognize it? That makes no sense. Marriage, like "names", is a concept you are free to imagine yourself within all you want. You and your lover can "get married" in any way you want. If you want society to recognize it however, you must pursuade us. The traditional method is the ceremony, the church, the rice, yadda yadda yadda and for the state, it's the marriage license.

 

So what is stopping you from considering yourselves married? Nothing. No, you're fighting for, and rightfully so, to be recognized by the state as a union, and so that means others. Otherwise, this whole exercise is a waste of time.

 

First, there is no "5000 year old definition of marriage". Back then, you were basically purchasing a female slave. And frequently, you could,purchase *several*. Romantic love as a basis didn't even enter the picture until the middle ages. Divorce was unknown until the 1500s. The idea of women even having a say didn't crop up until the 1700s, and that a minimal power at best. Interracial marriage was universally forbidden (and illegal in the US) until the 1960's. So that entire argument is bullshit.

 

None of the disparaging commentary in your paragraph counters the notion of marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't care if it was forced slavery, it's irrelevant to the point that the word "marriage" is the union of a man and woman. Come up with your own word instead of hijacking existing ones.

 

Hell, isn't that better? I'd love to be able to create my own damn word to describe my union, that has been bigoted for centuries in this country. It has earned it. "Marriage" doesn't deserve you.

 

Finally, this is not Magic Libertarian Fairy Land where the God of The Free Market will instantly change everything to make it perfect forever. You want to work towards your long term goal, fine. But TIME DOES MATTER, because time=suffering. Every year we delay is more needless suffering. How will allowing gay marriage impede your goals, anyway? It won't. All it will do is allow a group of people to have basic human rights NOW, and you can sort it out later when you finally get your wished-for world (which, IMHO, will be *never*).

 

That's a good point, and one I have conceded to before. You have your goals, I have mine and we each have our reasons. I call it role playing (stop snickering you dirty minded pigs). We have our roles to play and I think they're both necessary. I try to share my larger goal bit with those focused on the short term, but not to shut them down, rather to express my intent so they don't misrepresent me as the enemy, even though on the short term we are on opposing sides.

 

Back to the subject at hand' date=' the reason "people like me" are making a fuss about this is simple - we don't believe we should be forced to 'make do' and 'sit quietly and behave'. We have every right to hold our suffering in the faces of those who oppose us and demand they account for themselves.

 

There is a time for dialog and discourse, and a time for compromise. But being willing to compromise does NOT mean turning a blind eye to someone's faults, nor does it mean avoiding those faults like a fart in the elevator that nobody wants to own up to. Warren should not be given a pass on his homophobia just because he's done other good things. This goes for Obama too - nobody has forgotten his willingness to abandon the ideals of equality because of a magical sky pyxie, and he's been repeatedly questioned about it by the gay community.

 

And finally, there is NO "philosophical difference". There is no justification, no rationale against gay marriage which does not, under scrutiny, end up with "gays are icky" (general opposition to marriage on libertarian terms is a different matter). Hidden in the cloak of religion or not, it's always the same, and it's always hatred. Find me any example to the contrary if you can, but I guarantee you won't.[/quote']

 

First, no one is suggesting you sit quietly and behave and to keep saying that suggests you're trying to create oppression to glorify your cause, where none exists. Do not sit quietly. Make a fuss. Civil discourse does not mean keeping your mouth shut.

 

You mention Warren as a homophobe, yet he consistently defends himself by pointing out his gay friends and/or acquaintances. I've also never read that he's against civil unions. He also stated last night on Dateline NBC that he does not believe "gay marriage" is a threat to marriage whatsoever. He's standing on free speech principles, which I'm at a loss to understand actually, but I can relate since my position is about the integrity of the constitution - neither is about gay people being partners recognized by the state.

 

That's why both sides keep talking past each other. You insist it's about homophobia, and then procede to fight that front. But there's not many soldiers there because their troops are massed at the principles of law, not homophobia. There's nothing anyone can do to stop homosexuals from partnering up and being "married", so I'm not sure why you assume that's their goal in fighting gay marriage.

 

Do you really believe that Warren and his kind are of the mind that if they stop you from being able to label your union as "married" that will stop homosexuality? I've listened to Warren too much to fall for that premise. He's too deep for that kind of shallow expectation.

 

No, for him I believe it's about a philosophical difference on the definition of "marriage". Hopefully he and I would both take the same position on ANY issue where the republic tries to use the redefinition of words to expand law, rather than expanding the damn laws.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

Finally, let's put this in perspective. You're upset and have justified a militant, intolerant discourse towards Warren and his followers based on the reality that their one position causes real life damage and pain.

 

By that logic, we all can easily justify militant, intolerant discourse with anyone that disagrees on ONE point with us.

 

For instance, my particular "cause", if you will, is the injustification of putting people in prison for victimless crime, most notably dealing pot or prostitution. Thousands, if not millions, of fathers incarcerated - right now - rotting away in prison over POT. Years wasted in jail, the psychological trauma of incarceration, the mental depreciation of the environment, the violence and rape, loss of connection with their children, their families, shit you can't meausure. The poor mothers who have to do it all now, and abandon the life they had because the breadwinner is in prison now for smoking dope after work. Kids growing up without their fathers and permanent irreversible damage that causes. These are years and experiences that can't be made up, and are too priceless to truly appreciate. Many could argue that this creates more criminal activity since it promotes poverty by incarcerating the source of income, the father.

 

By your logic, I'm justified in militantly dismissing every politician that agrees pot should be illegal. I shouldn't tolerate any of these jokers. Look at the pain they are causing. Screw dialogue, this is war, yadda yadda yadda. There is no common ground, and there is no working together on anything because we disagree on this ONE thing and it causes real pain and suffering.

 

That's potentially the case for EVERY political disagreement. Politics is not a game. It's real life. Every position, however philosophical, has a real life consequence. And every position, however painful, has a philosophical foundation. So you can justify your intolerant attitude with appeals to real life suffering, but in reality, you're enjoying that position because the rest of us are NOT exercising our intolerance with appeals to real life suffering.

 

If we were, your voice would drown in the chaos, and this republic would not function at all.

[Mokele]

Wait a minute...what right are you trying to attain then if you are not forcing others to recognize it? That makes no sense. Marriage, like "names", is a concept you are free to imagine yourself within all you want. You and your lover can "get married" in any way you want. If you want society to recognize it however, you must pursuade us.

 

Legally recognize, not religiously.

 

By your logic, people should have been 'persuaded' to recognize inter-racial marriage. But instead, we rightly realized that the Constitution exists in part to prevent the majority from denying rights to the minority, and the Supreme Court overturned it.

 

People are still free to express their displeasure, but their freedom does NOT extend into denying others their rights.

 

None of the disparaging commentary in your paragraph counters the notion of marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't care if it was forced slavery, it's irrelevant to the point that the word "marriage" is the union of a man and woman. Come up with your own word instead of hijacking existing ones.

 

And you have just completely missed the point.

 

The POINT is that the "definition of marriage" has changed so much and so often that it's a completely bogus argument.

 

Oh, and as for your "man+woman" crap - wrong. Plenty of societies recognized gay unions, and Christianity itself performed gay marriages until the 10th century.

 

I try to share my larger goal bit with those focused on the short term, but not to shut them down, rather to express my intent so they don't misrepresent me as the enemy, even though on the short term we are on opposing sides.

 

Allow me to make it simple for you: What damage would it do to your goals to allow gay marriage? Regardless of your philosophic position, allowing it would temporarily solve the situation until you can gain enough political clout to implement your ideas.

 

Hell, if you allow gay marriage, rather than civil unions, it'll be *easier* for you, because then you'll just have to pass one bill removing governmental privileges from everything called 'marriage', rather than two.

 

You mention Warren as a homophobe, yet he consistently defends himself by pointing out his gay friends and/or acquaintances.

 

That's irrelevant, and one of the oldest tricks in the book - "I can't be racist/misogynist/homophobic - I've got friends who are black/women/gay! Now let me get back to taking their rights away."

 

Seriously, I've heard that one so many times it makes me want to smack whoever says it. You cannot be progressive by association - you have to walk the walk yourself.

 

But there's not many soldiers there because their troops are massed at the principles of law, not homophobia.

 

Bullshit. Cite sources.

 

Seriously, I have *never* heard of a law-based objection, and I've been following this issue intensely for many years. Every time, it's a bunch of religious bigots talking about how evil gays will pollute marriage.

 

The plain and obvious fact is that the opposition to gay marriage is based on homophobia, backed by religion. Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential.

 

Do you really believe that Warren and his kind are of the mind that if they stop you from being able to label your union as "married" that will stop homosexuality? I've listened to Warren too much to fall for that premise. He's too deep for that kind of shallow expectation.

 

Really? Then why has he said that homosexuality is not natural, not a right, and shouldn't be in any way protected? By the way, this is in a conference with reference to Africa, where gays are frequently brutally murdered in the street. Some compassion, eh?

 

By that logic, we all can easily justify militant, intolerant discourse with anyone that disagrees on ONE point with us

 

You are strawmanning.

 

Not all positions are equal. A disagreement over a 1% increase in property taxes, while it does affect people and take money, is not even close to comparable. A few thousand dollars is NOTHING next to a lifetime of persecuation and being denied equal protection.

 

Some issues ARE more important than others.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

And you have just completely missed the point.

 

The POINT is that the "definition of marriage" has changed so much and so often that it's a completely bogus argument.

 

Oh, and as for your "man+woman" crap - wrong. Plenty of societies recognized gay unions, and Christianity itself performed gay marriages until the 10th century.

Thanks for adding a new weapon to my arsenal in these arguments. I just confirmed what you've said through a few different methods, and I am happy that this appears very true. In addition to the whole recognition of polygamy and marriage not even being a sacriment until the 1200s, this point shoots the whole "it's been the same for 5000 years" argument directly in the foot.

[Pangloss]

The church performed gay marriages until the 10th century?

 

How do we know this?