The Gay Community Needs to Calm Down About Rick Warren

There is much more to object to with this selection than the Rev. Warren's homophobia. One might mention, for example, his church's dedication to stripping women of reproductive rights and his failure to support abused women. (On his church's website, spousal abuse is not listed as legitimate grounds for divorce while infidelity is.) 

President-elect Obama seems to have a very large blind spot when it comes to his preachers. This latest mis-step does offer him the opportunity, however, to speak out on the importance of the separation of church and state while frankly acknowleding that this time, he blew it.

As with the Rev. Wright fiasco, the longer the Warren fiasco festers, the worse it will get. 

It's just that they're assholes. Kirchick commendably tells the drama queens to shut up already,  but then he slides back into the cesspool of lies which characterize the gay marriage advocacy.

Opposition to gay marriage is not homophobia, as Kirchick likes to claim.  This is a base slander of millions of Americans who, for example, applaud the Supreme Court's decriminalization of homosexuality, who support specified rights for gay couples and who oppose discrimination in housing and employment, but who consider gay marriage as overreaching and unnecessary.  They may be wrongheaded about gay marriage, but they are not bigots or homophobes.  Yet, this is how the screamers, including Kirchick, seek to characterize them.

A fauning Obamaphile, Kirchick calls Obama "the most pro-gay candidate in American history" (Like, er, Howard Dean was never a candidate), while conveniently omitting the fact that Obama -- like every other mainstream politician in both parties, from McCain to Kerry to the Clintons to Gore to Biden, as well as a clear majority of Americans -- opposes gay marriage.  Obama owes gays nothing, least of all support for gay marriage.

OK, you're here, you're queer, we're used to it. Gay marriage is wretched excess.  As yet another state outlaws gay marriage, its advocates insist that the tide is in their favor.  I suggest that Kirchick and his fellow screechers take a break from their endless, self-referential disco party and take a reality check.  Their world will not end if they don't get to have state-recognized weddings.  There will be no gay holocaust, which no doubt deflates their sense for the dramatic.  Life will go on.  Really.  As Diamond Lil used to say, "Girls, get over yourselves!"

First of all, I entirely agree with Jamie Kirchick here. But I want to respond to one of the comments. "lbjack" insists that opposition to gay marriage is not motivated by bigotry, then he displays his own by including Jamie among "screamers" and "screechers." In what way was Jamie screaming or screeching? This is simply a facile anti-gay put-down. So gay people's drive for marriage equality is "wretched excess" and the notion that the tide of history is with us is obviously delusional because we've lost ballot initiatives? First of all, kindly pay attention to the shifting numbers. For example, the vote in California was a lot closer this year than in 2000. No, lbjack, the world will not end if I cannot marry my partner, who is a foreign national, but our relationship may not be able to withstand the extra legal and financial burdens caused by the discrimination against us. This is about equality under the law, and I'm sorry that you refuse to get that. Jamie and I both criticize the recent overreaction to Obama's invitation to Rick Warren, and we stress the importance for moving forward of talking to people who disagree with us instead of retreating into an ideological echo chamber. Yet the way lbjack jumps on Jamie shows that there are some people determined to "put us in our place," so he reacts as if Jamie said virtually the opposite of what he said. Surely, lbjack, you know that it is not possible that every gay person who disagrees with you is automatically "screeching." If that patronizing attitude of yours is not homophobic, what is it? You talk about there not being a holocaust, as if anyone here suggested any such thing. We're not talking about genocide, we're talking about bias. Please pay attention. The fact that many gay activists, in Jamie's view and my own, are overreacting to the Warren invitation does not mean that Warren's remarks comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia were not offensive. If you agree with Jamie's criticism of the overreaction to the Warren invitation, and you want to encourage a more constructive engagement on the issue, then you should stifle the cheap and patronizing put-downs.

I love the way the author conveniently left out how Warren likened gays to pedophiles and those who practice incest. It puts the outrage into a bit more perspective.

Kirchick, from your article I take it that if Obama had invited an influential, outspoken anti-semite to give the invocation but invited a Rabbi to give the closing prayer you would accept that calmly?

The Obama dreamers are in for some serious disappointments, mostly because they failed to do their homework and just went around frothing with talking points.

Obama's not a revolutionary dude by any means.  He's a 1980s-bred technocrat with a lot of charm, and he's devoted to making sure the prepschool boys who were born with silver spoons keep letting him into their clubs.   This was blindingly obvious to me, maybe because I was a 1980s-bred girl trained to be a technocrat, and I went to school with those prepschool boys.  But a lot of the electorate seems to have missed it.  Well, they'll figure it out.  Not to say he won't be a good president; he may be.  Just don't expect 4 years of liberal disco, that's all.

His desire to be "Head Faggot In Charge" has been fairly blatant for some time now. But he's not up to the task. More important he has zero understanding of gay history or gay issues. As for Rick Warren and the President Elect --

http://www.laweekly.com/2008-12-25/columns/black-is-the-new-white/

It isn't a gay issue, but one of civil rights and the separation of church and state.   Warren wants to inflict his peculiar religious ideas upon the rest of us.   In the past 28 years, the line bettween church and state as been blurred.   The founders of our country left Europe to escape this kind of intolerance.    They knew we needed the separation of church and state to protect individuals in a pluralistic society.

Warren thinks it is okay to assassinate a head of state.  He is against  a women's right to privacy in medical decisions.  He doesn't believe physical abuse is a grounds for divorce. 

Only the Gay community has the courage to stand up against him.   Don't blame them.   Blame those of us who lack the courage to speak up.

Obama's base needs to support him, but focus their economic support on those folks that promote the values of the base,   like the Human Rights Campaign.  Yes, supportObama by making him do the right thing.

Authoritarians blindly follow their leaders.    Liberals and progressives push their leaders to do the right thing.  That is what sets us part from the lemmings.

What hypocrisy. You tell the gays to get over it, but if he had invited the head of the Arian Nations, you'd be screaming your head off.

Get over myself?! I am tired of people telling gay people to be quiet about this and to wait until this generation expires and the new one takes over.  I have been waiting too long for equal rights and I will continue to speak out every time that I feel someone does soemthing that in my opinion is wrong.  What Obama has done by inviting Rick Warren to speak at the Inauguration gives credit to the man's views, which are downright discriminatory and that is wrong.  He has the right to invite whoever he wants, but I have the right to be upset about it and complain about it.  If we hold our opinions until the time is right, can you tell me when that would be?  Sorry, but I will speak out when I see injustice being done anywhere.

Douglas Gibson, Jr.

Jamie, this is absolutely ridiculous, especially when compared with your outrage over Ron Paul's newsletter writings.

I cannot stand Ron Paul, and thought you were right on the money in condemning his bigotry.  But now you seem to be suggesting that bigotry is no big deal.

Let's be real here, boyfriend.  If it was Louis Farrakhan being invited to the invocation, and Obama was soothing the objections by noting that one of the bands playing will be a Jewish band -- and Team Obama was insisting that we Jewfolk were being "divisive" by "targeting Minister Farrakhan's right to free speech" -- you'd be screaming your head off and writing more exposes in The Atlantic.

Selective outrage is another reason why nobody takes gay conservatives seriously.  If the anti-gay bigotry in Ron Paul's newsletters from 16 years ago deserves a thorough expose and public condemnation by a queer Jew, the rush to apologia for the 16-week-old comments of Rev. Warren by the same queer Jew represents an obvious attempt to curry favor with the existing political establishment.  That makes David Ehrenstein's assessment of your motives rather close to home, I'm afraid.

Who are these people telling us to calm down.  What gives them the right to tell us to sit still while others trample on who we are and our rights as equal citizens?  Who are they to tell me God doesn't approve?  They are not my judge, nor my parent or my God.  They have no right to tell me to be calm when my rights are being abused.  I am not their property. I will not sit still and allow others to tell me to remain calm.  I will shout at the top of my lungs for equal rights. I will protest. I will write to my newspaper and I will continue to push my governement to realize that we are people and that we deserve to be treated as equals.  I will fight the bigots until they are defeated!  Whether their efforts are large or small, I applaud everyone who contributes to equality for all people.  Keep up the fight.  Do not ever allow anyone to belittle our rights.  Talk, protest or whatever it takes.  Just do.

Beautifully-said. I couldn't agree more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhwFAmk7cRQ

So if you have two tolerant people on your committee, then it's okay to have a bigot igive the invocation.  By the same token, since our synagogue has so many Jews, no one could object if we hired a Nazi rabbi.

"I'm of the firm belief that these debates
will be moot in 20 years, when the older generation kicks the bucket and the
near-universally gay-accepting Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers take the reins of
government"?????????????????????????

Let me tell you how much this sentence of yours reminds me of what a lot of people believed 40 years ago, when those in the civil rights movement said, in 20 years when the white supremacy generation kicks the bucket we will have complete equality.

Guess what, it didn't happen.  Yes things are better now, we even elected an African American President, but that doesn't mean we stop fighting for equality for ALL citizens.  There will always be a fight to insure that some small minded faction doesn't try to implement their views and beliefs on others.  

Right now there are groups in Northern Idaho and through out our country that would like to see an all white "christian" nation here, there are people sending their kids to "Jesus Camps" where they learn not only that they are the only one's with the "truth" but that homosexuality needs to be re-criminalized and sent to "Ex-Gay Reparative Therapy" programs, and don't get me started on the anti-Semites that still exist out there.

See, that older generation passes on things to their children and the hate groups are still able to recruit new YOUNG members.  And don't forget George W. Bush was a member of that "hippie, free love, peace and harmony" generation that we all looked forward to taking over someday.

We need to act now, and call them as they come up.  We aren't crying wolf, we are pointing out bigotry where it is. Wait for something more important to come up?  People like Rick Warren and those who hold his beliefs and espouse them are WHY we have "don't ask, don't tell" why gay, lesbians and transgendered people are beaten up and murdered.  A warm fuzzy bigot is still a bigot.

Duh, Jamie Kirchick is correct and it is really tough to see the other side in this issue.  Obama is not reaching out, he is not being moderate--Rick Warren is ALREADY liberal-minded and on their side.  Warren is Oprah's choice--not someone from evangelical hell and clearly not a "Nazi."  People who speak this way need to go back and hide under a rock. 

Rick Warren is a well-known mainstream religious leader and if you want to argue the point, please consider the fact that if he was not such a moderate--he would not accept the invitation.  Any gay activist who believes that allowing him to speak is an assault against homosexuals is not a sane person in control of reality. Gay marriage is opposed by the vast majority of Americans and is not in any stretch of the imagination a civil right. By contrast, homosexuals thrive in American society and at the highest levels of our nation.

The liberal wing of the Jewish community has attached itself to gay marriage without any thought and this is a scandal in our community.  I implore people to stop and think about it for a moment.

Anyone who believes that asking Rick Warren to give the benediction at the Presidential Inauguration is NOT an assault against gay people is a moron.

Ok, let's see.  Warren has the same position on gay marriage as almost everyone in America--including the man giving the party, Mr. Obama.  Mr. Obama is very close to the gay community and feels that Warren is fine.  It is only gay activists who oppose Warren and many gay people have no problem with Warren.

The question here is how far will a group of radicals go slam everyone in their midst to try to get their way?  This is the ultimate in "Country Last!" mantra the left proudly espouses.   Oh, and if yoiu don't see it their way, you are also a "moron."

If gay people want to hate Mr. Obama over simply inviting a religious person to give a benediction--who else MOREgay friendly could he have invited that has at least some popular support?  Any Rabbi (that is a real Rabbi) is to be damned--no evangelical, no good Catholic--he would have been forced to pick some New Age unknown to get the HRC seal of approval.  "Winning" the approval of this tiny loud obnoxious group of haters is simply not worth Mr. Obama's time and energy not is it the right thing to do or the popular thing.

I understand the effort here--it is to remove any religious sentiment in the public square--banning all religious thought and practice.  This is the goal of gay activism.  Warren is not at all the issue.  The benediction is the issue.  The message is that if you don't have a benediction, you won't offend gay people and *failing to offend* is the highest bit of politically-correct orthodoxy.

In what alternate reality?

Mr. Obama has played the gay community for suckers. A few random mentions in a speech or two, but when it comes to same-sex marriage "God is in the mix." (What mix? Bisquick?) So you can forget about DOMA, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and ENDA cause THEY'RE NOT HAPPENING ON HIS WATCH!!!!!

Barack Obama is just another cheap, lying politician and the sooner everyone takes off their rose-colored glasses and realizes this the better.

More important, gay power comes from the streets -- not from the suites. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!

I am pleased to give you a green light, David.  Go right ahead and express your hatred towards the man carrying *your* agenda.

Obama is very close to your position--almost right on top of it and you want to spit him in the eye.  The reaction has been registered and your cause is going quickly down the drain.  I am no supporter of Obama but I am less of a supporter of those who want to destroy religion.

You are making Obama look good and your cause (such as it is) even worse in the eyes of public opinion.  You came close to actually killing marriage in California but by being such sore losers--take the vote again and it will not be so close.

Good grief, even the flag ship for gay activism, Jewcy, says "calm down about Rick Warren" and still some explode.  Since you hate Obama, why not now lodge a protest against Jewcy for suggesting some calm and rationality?

That wouldn't even be true if the only sources of media were Jewish websites.

I've read all your comments regarding gay issues, and I'm convinced you're either a gay liberal trying to make homophobes look even worse than they already do, or . . . a real homophobe who shifts uncomfortably in his seat when watching rugby. 

Being gay isn't a sin, but lying is. And David Friedman's posts are full of lies--way too many to even list all of them, in fact.

Quote: "Warren has the same position on gay marriage as almost everyone in America."

Wrong. The very fact that Prop 8 was so close is proof you're lying.  ALL my friends accept that being gay is not a choice and they all support gay marriage.  I don't think I know anyone under the age of 30 who feels differently except for one religious wack job (and he also thinks Jews are going to hell.)

 Quote: "It is only gay activists who oppose Warren. . . "

Wtf?  How can you write nonsense like that?

Quote: "The question here is how far will a group of radicals go slam [sic] everyone in their midst to try to get their way?"  This is the ultimate in "Country Last!" mantra the left proudly espouses."

Right, because it's so awful to write emails and conduct peaceful protests. Gays should just shut up and plan weddings for the straight people who have rights.

Quote: ". . . he would have been forced to pick some New Age unknown to get the HRC seal of approval."

Pure drivel. Most gay Americans are Christians. I'm a Conservative Jew who attends synagogue every week and fasts on Yom Kippur.

Quote: "I understand the effort here--it is to remove any religious sentiment in the public square--banning all religious thought and practice.  This is the goal of gay activism.  Warren is not at all the issue."

No. The goal of gay activism is equal rights for gays and lesbians. If gays wanted to ban religion, they wouldn't be trying to get married in the churches and synagogues that will marry them. I love Judaism with all my heart, and I won't allow bigots like you to take that away from me. YOU are the one who is constantly breaking the commandments against lying and bearing false witness with your ridiculous hate-filled comments about an issue you obviously know nothing about. And as you should know, even in Orthodox Judaism, those sins are much more serious than same-sex intercourse. So be more Jewish, David. Stop lying.

I suppose that an appeal to calm down *is* too much to ask.  Jewcy has backed all things homosexualwith more conviction than all things Jewish--so much so that it can easily be concluded that homosexual rights and Jewish rights are nearly identical.  And yet, going all the way against marriage causes some at even Jewcy to appeal to calm and rationality and that appeal gets angry rebuttals from the Left.  I do not like to quote Bill Clinton but "I feel your pain."

It is gratifying that even in a year when the Left won everything electorally, they lost every contest concerning homosexual marriage--even in Left-crazed California.  In dozens of other states across our great nation, laws have been newly posted against homosexual marriage.  By the numbers and by the facts, gay marriage remains very unwelcome in the same country that also is very friendly to homosexuals. In America today, we take more notice that Mitt Romney is a Mormon than a high ranked Bush official is homosexual.  A Jew in my homoetown growing up could not buy a house in certain neighborhoods, they would not care then or now if that person was gay and lived with a same-sex partner.  The live and let live attitude *towards* homosexuals is fine and America's tolerance is on display regarding gays--even before all the politically-correct teaching that has tried to take tolerance to equivalence. 

The response to the electoral defeat in California (they forget about 30 other states were they have been defeated!) is offensive to decent, tolerant Americans.  Churches are being attacked, black Americans castigated, Mormons threatened, Bibles burned and now to top it off, liberal icon Obama is being bashed and even the Jewcy blog is barked at for merely suggesting a bit of calm and perspective.  

Alas, I am merely someone who agrees with the vast  majority of America.  Gay marriage has not been advocated by any major Presidential candidate for office in America. Homosexuals have full rights in America.  At no time in America have we allowed extra rgihts to a group of people defined by behavior.  There are no special rights for smokers or speeders, for example.  Smokers have full civil rights as Americans--as smokers, sorry, their behavior can be regulated.  Marriage is a regulated activity and the state has an interest in marriage.

Local fool Richard Cohen is not homosexual--he set himself on fire over Rick Warren and --he is truly a "gay activist."  Yes, if you are all upset over Warren giving a speech simply because he believes marriage is best between a man and a woman--you would be a "gay activist."

Yes, homosexual acts are sins and it is now au courant to believe no sexual act is sinful--until, of course, it is someone close to you who is commiting the sinful act.

Being gay isn't a choice. Being religious is.

Smart people see that, and religious maniacs do not. Or at least many of them do not. Others DO see it and pretend they don't understand it for either religious continuity or because they are gay themselves. 

Also, I wasn't responding to the Warren controversy or to the original article. I was responding to your idiotic, un-Jewish lies about a group of people.

Obama is not part of the Taliban (er, at least I don't think he is)--the overwhelming majority of America is not part of some conspiracy to deprive a minority of their human rights.  A "human nrights campaign" is pure and simple fraud.

The issue here is one of law--pure and simple.  Marriage as an institution has such a large and vital pedigree--it goes well beyond some current petty law that can be invented and amended at will.  Much law in this nation is rubbish and ironically, it is the same people who want us to kill marriage in this nation whjo have forced all these crazy laws upon us.  Every one of these laws is a discimination and one in which the majority will is forced upon the minority.  I pay about 50% of my salary in tax--other people pay 10% and some pay zero.  This is a discrimination and one notbased in moraklity or tradition--it is simply recent political will and enforced discrimination.  This is the nature of our law and if I don't like --I can enter the political process and seek to change it.What I cannot do in the face of a myriad of discriminatory laws is to stand up with a straight face and complain that this is not equitable and represents discrimination.

 Marriage is so much more fundamental than any particular tax issue. It is a basicsocietal unit.  One man and one woman, committed to each other create a marital unit.  Two single people are a unit but not a marital one.  No state will license a man and two women as a unit--yes this is a discrimination.  Is it a block to freedom--no-- if some guy can get two women to live with him--fine--but it is not a marriage.

Two men are free to cohabitate--they are not allowed to call their arranagement a marriage and the terms of marriage cannot apply to same-sex people .  If the terms of marriage are changed--all marriage is changed and marriage is already in trouble.

They have a right to be miserable too!

I think Rick Warren is a douchebag who compares homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. The man does not even understand the concept of CONSENT, which makes me wonder about his private fantasies.

Seriously, what does it matter if people want to make their relationship legal so they can sign consent forms for DNR and surgery and make decisions about property when they separate? Or be allowed to attend the other's funeral inspite of crappy families who won't let them?

I've never understood why people get so excited over inconsequentialities. Whats it gonna matter when you're lying on your death bed, if you let some one do it???

The trouble with cats is that they've got no tact. - P. G. Wodehouse