Monday, December 22, 2008

Democrats and Gay Rights Leaders Destroying Obama Inaugural Over Warren. Both are Still Their Own Worst Enemy.

Democrats are making me crazy. As much as I am outraged at the situation in California, and the closeted bigot’s promotion of second class citizen status of gay individuals, cut the crap already.
Holding Obama’s feet to the fire on equal and not separate issues is different than this rabid attempt at poisoning the incoming presidential administration.

Get a grip, and work to change public perception of gay marriage so the states can remove discriminatory amendments already in place.

Republicans took everyone’s eyes off the issues during the Clinton Administration with “Don’t ask don’t tell,” the gay wedge issue that lights up the party faithful. Take a deep breath, control yourself, and don’t let that happen this time around.

Take Cathy Lynn Grossman, the USA Today’s Faith & Reason columnist, whose column about and Steven Waldman interview with Rick Warren was rigorous and detailed. According to Grossman:

It's an interview laden with fascinating quotes -- Warren's support for civil unions, for example, includes quotes that got Richard Cizik, formerly a leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, shown the door. Then he turns and equates gay marriage with incest. See the Beliefnet interview video or read the transcript for yourself. Meanwhile, I still find no similar cloudbursts of criticism over the naming of a pro-gay rights pastor, civil rights icon Rev. Joseph Lowery, to give the benediction.

After watching the clip, I was more confused than angry about his position or his comparisons to gay marriage, which are often times pulled out of context on blogs and the major news networks.

Perhaps the real problem is based on a segment of our population hung up on the “definition” of marriage. Maybe this rigid definition, which has been defined differently over the centuries (Warren is wrong history), has been turned into something ugly and divisive.

Perhaps now is the time to develop a new category, one that challenges the elitist snobbery of “the one and only definition” of marriage, and put in place a more inclusive union under a name all groups can adopt as a show of independence.

No comments:

Post a Comment