Rick Warren vs. Melissa Etheridge, or not

Oh gag me with a spoon, these celebrities are only out for their own ego trips.

Of course, Rick Warren, now under scrutiny, is going to do what he can to try to prove to the world that he's not homophobic. Stating his love for gays and Muslims is the public relations equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are black." Obama claims it's important to engage with different points of view and to avoid polarization. But I'm getting very tired of people trying to pass off bigotry as a benign difference of opinion. After all he's not inviting leaders of the KKK or the president of Iran to speak at his inauguration. Why isn't the line drawn at a man who considers gays equivalent to pedophiles?

Of course he loves gays. As long as they know their place and don't get uppity.

"But I'm getting very tired of people trying to pass off bigotry as a benign difference of opinion"
Incredible intolerance by those supposedly preaching tolerance.
Supposedly gay marriage will not result in traditional religious believers being put in legal jeopardy. But the current experience in California, where religious leaders have been ridiculed and harassed, is not a good omen.
Given the anti-democratic bent of many of the extreme gay zealots, if they had their way belief in traditional values will be a 'hate crime'.

So, Bob, in your opinion, condemnation of bigotry is "Incredible intolerance". Only in the conservative world does one have to accept intolerance in others in order to be considered tolerant.

And I'm curious what religious leaders in California have been put in legal jeopardy by their opposition to gay marriage (Hint: being ridiculed is not being put in "legal jeopardy.").

even jesus ate with the prostitutes and tax collectors....acts of grace and huble grace attitudes as in love the sinner hate the sin is how even christ approached ALL sinners

Bob @4 - no one wants your tolerance. They simply want their rights. Hate them all you want, mock them, blame them for all of society's ills, fear them, spread lies, twist words, do as you will, but if you take their rights from them (see Prop. 8), they will not be silent. Why should they? Would you?

Problem is activists confuse the true meaning of tolerance. You can tolerate something without validating it. If homosexuality were equaly true or normative behavior, then half the population would be gay and there would be 1/2 as many people on the planet.

Would you prefer.....
Reverend Wright....
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson Sr.
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Rod Bagovick......?

When you become president for a day. you can choose who you want....

Thanks for this article. Not all of us evangelical Christians are fire-breathing dragons. In fact, not all of us act alike or think alike. A lot of us are just trying to follow Jesus. That's a big enough job for anybody in a world this complex. Sometimes we get it right, and sometimes we don't. It's a worthwhile challenge.

just me - they have the SAME rights in California without prop 8. What they want is state sanction moral equivalency validation shoved down everyone's throats - and civil and criminal sanctions if you do not agree. That has nothing to do with rights - it has everything to do with ideology. The City of San Francisco had a resolution calling the Bible "hate speech".

The "bigot" label is the best they come up with, because they have no other logical or legally viable argument. (Watch the hate in response to this....). In California, a McCarthy- like black list is occurring from these loving an tolerant people.

Thanks for pointing that out Jon. Being a Christian means that we love one another( even our enemies) as we love ourselves. Being oposed to someone's life style doesn't mean you have to hate them and no one is sinless. If you are a Christian, you know that.

Don't care what Obama had in mind, don't care what the masses think. Any time any group is denied the rights under the law that the masses have it is wrong. It is un-American to not treat everyone the same. We all get the same benifits and we all get the same screw job as well. The laws of the United States of America take precident over the laws of the bible, the koran, or any other religous group in this country. Rick Warren would impart his bigotry and Obama gives that bigotry validation.

If Obama truly were the hope we can believe in then he would be pro gay marriage under the law.

Obama wants to be inclusive and by nature that means others will be angry. Being gay I could care less about Rick Warren. I do not care what he has said in the past or what his view points are. I live my life to its fullest and with that I take responsibility for myself, my action, my feelings, and my thoughts. No one will ever be happy with anything all inclusive because people are prejudiced, period. They may think otherwise, but it's true. If it's a man believing a woman can't do something, or a republican disagreeing with a democrat, or a person who likes dogs over cats, we all discriminate. But what separates more intelligent people from the rest it, they understand this principle and try to understand differences among one another. They understand that hatefulness is not the answer, nor is complaining about it. There are many gay people who are smarter than str8s, who lead a more moral life than str8s, who are kinder, and who are happier and who are more successful. The same can be said about blacks vs. whites, Catholics vs. Muslim, dog lovers vs. cat lovers. The point, stop hating one another, begin accepting each other for who we all are, and learn to participate in constructive ways, and stop being hateful. But I forgot, you only want to have your personal points of view validated, so you have no room for discussion.

Right on, Bunny.

KJR,

Civil Unions and Marriage did not have the same legal definition under the Califonia code of law or taxation. In other words if you looked up the Marriage codes in the State of California they wer enot an exact copy except the word Marriage would be replaced with Civil Union.

Homosexuals and thier supports do not need to be tolerant of bigots and yes, you are a bigot if you believe that homosexuals do not have the right to be married under the laws of the states and the federal government. You are also un-American for your beliefs as well.

You also don't have to be tolerant of homosexuals, you can hate them all you want, but "Your rights end at the end of your fist hitting someone else nose." in other words you do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals in legal matters, employment or by violent acts. When you do so you are by definition a bigot

The United States of America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and to deny any citzen the same, not different but equal, rights and privledges that all other citizens is wrong, unconstitional and un-American. Please go live in another country if you feel this way. You do NOT have to love your fellow citizen, but you must allow them the same rights under the law.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." That's from Leviticus. (Lev 20:13)

If people are going to use the Leviticus to justify their bigotry they should go all out. The Bible clearly says that we should kill homosexual men. Should we kill them? The Bible tells us to kill them.

This is why our founding fathers, knew it was better to keep state and church seperate.

If we want to use the Bible as our set of laws, we will be doing a whole lot of killing

The Bible also tell us to eat kosher. Should kosher laws be the law?
Do we really want to outlaw BBQ , lobster, and cheeseburgers? Now there's a reason for civil unrest!

Isn't funny how Massachusetts is the first state to legallze same sex marriage and it still has the lowest divorce rate? So much for those "attack on marriage" "attack on family values" cries for the bible belt. Just look at the Bible belt. Those states have the highest divorce rates.

The Bible Belt should look at itself before it points the finger at us awful heathens in Massachusetts.

James, then you obviously feel a man can marry his sister and that multiple partner marriages should be acceptable as well?

proud2becatholic, Your assumption about James' feelings is remarkable. At no point did he imply that siblings should be allowed to marry or that multiple partner marriages should be allowed. It is also not a logical progression from civil unions. What it is, is a red herring you throw into the debate since you apparently lack any grounds to stand on.

As a fellow Catholic, I am sure you are aware that divorce is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Would you be in favor of a law that would outlaw divorce? Isn't divorce a greater threat to marriage than civil unions or same sex marriages? Where is the outcry for the end to divorce?

just me again -

Why do you call yourself Catholic if you dissent from a defined doctine such as the sanctity of marriage? Shouldn't you call yourself "Catholic when it is convenient for me"?

Just me again, maybe I didn't understand what he was saying. When he wrote "The United States of America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and to deny any citzen the same, not different but equal, rights and privledges that all other citizens is wrong, unconstitional and un-American". Wouldn't that include the right for anyone to marry anyone? I believe divorce like it was several years ago should not be given so easily. I believe in for better or worse and although sometimes a marraige can be declared invalid in 95% or so of divorce the couples problems should be worked out. As a fellow Catholic I'm sure you realize that we are called to follow all the teachings of our Church which we agree to when we are Confirmed and every time we say Amen before receiving Jesus in the holiest Sacrament of the Eucharist. God Bless and Merry Christmas!

By the way, the Bible and other Scripture is made up. Do you people forget about this? There is zero proof that anything as stated in the Bible actually happened. I am not sure why people believe it, or anything else like it as fact. It provides promise and fulfills people's desires to have a higher meaning, and it can serve as a guide. But, just like these Blog entries, they are based on opinions.
Live your life not to hate, but to contribute.

KJR - My opinion on the legality of civil unions/same sex marriage is not against any core teachings of the Catholic Faith. Same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, as it should be. The Catholic Church is not required to sanction those marriages any more than they do two non-Catholics marrying at City Hall via a Justice of the Peace. The world is a big place, full of many people besides us Catholics. The laws often reflect that difference. That's a good thing.

proud2beacatholic, "Wouldn't that include the right for anyone to marry anyone?" No, that is not the logical progression from the belief that 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to marry one another. As for divorce, I mention it because it is an example where The Catholic Church and state are very separate. Divorce is granted by the state but that divorce is not recognized by The Catholic Church, only an annulment is. No one is suggesting we "protect marriage" from divorce and I wonder why, since it clearly is a threat to marriage in that it legally dissolves marriages. I think it is because it is easier to scapegoat the homosexual community. But that's just my opinion.

This really isn't a religious issue at all, but a legal one.

KJR - who the hell are you to question anyone's self-description as Catholic or otherwise? Just another whitened sepulcher, aren't you? Another sanctimonious, publicly pious holier-than-everyone. If Jesus were alive today, can we assume, based on your many bigoted comments, that you'd be among those calling for his execution? Because it's more than apparent that you've absorbed absolutely nothing the man said during his time on earth. One post after another from you, reeking of fear and loathing, screaming the incessant demand that we all obey your laws, that we all kneel and worship you. Because, after all, to listen to you, God completely agrees with everything you say, do, think, and are.

Does it really matter? Rick Warren is speaking for two minutes at the most. God forbid Obama try to be inclusive, even with people who disagree with him on social issues. Isn't one of the problems liberals have with Bush is that he doesn't listen to people who disagree with him and exclude others? Sorry libs. Obama won't marginalize religious conservatives even if you want them all deported to a desert island.

OnTheLeft - thank you for your calm and measured response. If you read the post carefully, you would see that I was judging no one, and do not judge anyone, just questioning one's ability to call oneself something while at the same time dissenting to what that something is. Rather illogical isn't it?

You, nor James Stevenson, (who called me unamerican because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman - I know that is a radical concept) can't respond directly to the issue, but rather, resort to name-calling. That is the trademark on the "left", and your handle suits you very well. The left is terrorizing some in California who supported Prop 8. Your post is hateful and intolerant of another's view. That is the scam and irony of this whole debate.

Talk about judgmental? I have "absorbed absolutely nothing that the man said when he was on earth". Really? Well, I have absorbed at least one thing: I respect his giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom" and respect that which was "bound on earth" as being "bound in Heaven". Jesus' words, not mine.

Your flamethrowing proves the point. Thanks.

If my church chooses to recognize gay marriages as valid, as some of the more progressive Christian churches do, then how is giving legal validity to heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage NOT a violation of the separation of church and state as well as the first amendment? The separation of church and state is critical to the function of our great nation, all Americans belief systems are recognized as valid in the eyes of the Constitution, whether you're Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Deist, agnostic or atheist.
If our Constitution and religious freedoms are truly to be respected, then any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult and have that marriage recognized and treated equally in the eyes of law.

it was very bad and we got about 3 or 4 feet..

Michael, I appreciate your article. In very few words you capture exactly what is happening. Instead of polarities and the "never the twain shall meet" attitude of the past 8 years, we find President-elect Obama already finding ways to draw divergent groups together where they may honestly be awakened to the common humanity we really do share. Major shifts in attitude never come when we refuse to talk...it is only when we choose to face one another and begin the process of relational development that new light dawns. Sometimes it takes a mediator. How remarkable and refreshing that after the past 8 years of line in the sand authoritarianism it should be our President-elect taking the initiative. What a powerful statement as he prepares to begin his Presidency.

KJR, you continue to be a real piece of work, man.

You said this:

"You, nor James Stevenson, (who called me unamerican because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman - I know that is a radical concept) can't respond directly to the issue, but rather, resort to name-calling."

after saying in an earlier post, this:

"What they want is state sanction moral equivalency validation shoved down everyone's throats"

Sir, you just called gays morally inferior. Please quit your whining about name calling. You certainly never hold back. You just don't see it as name calling.

You never cease to amaze me with your hypocritical and narcissistic perspective.

while you are all sitting comfortably in your warm homes mulling over this CRISIS...the toys for tots campaign is short over 50% of what they need in toys this year....for the many children who will go without.....I dropped my change in the bucket of a salvation army bell ringer the other day....she told me that was the first donation of the day......it was 2PM!!!!!! PLEASE while your sitting hear reading this go to ANY charitable web site this season and donate something...ANYTHING...just donate.....it's bad out there.

To redbarchetta88:
Rick Warren's contribution to the inauguration is MORE than just "speaking for two minutes at the most". He is being given a very important symbolic role in the process, something more than just a speech. So, yes, his opinions about his fellow Americans "really matter" I notice Obama, in his desire to be all-inclusive, has not given a prominent role to an avowed racist. There are many racist Americans. Surely their voice should be heard at the inauguration also.

KJR:
Neither Civil Unions, nor Domestic Partnerships are the same as state-sanctioned marriage. If they were, there would be no need for the separate terms. Since the state can not, by definition, sanction "morality", I have no idea where you get the idea that gays are looking for "state sanction moral equivalency validation." All gays want are the SAME right to marry the person of their choice as heterosexuals currently enjoy. Nothing more and nothing less. Nothing is being shoved down anyone's throat. Anyone who does not want to take part in a same-sex marriage does not have to. No church will ever be required to perform a marriage that violates their beliefs. Notice that today, no church or priest is required to perform a marriage between a Catholic and a Jew, and those types of marriages have been legal for years.

Am I the only one here who's offended by Melissa Etheridge's "music"? Screaming platitudes with no sense of nuance or subtlety... horrid.

KJR,

Actually I named called and directly responded to your point of view, I guess you just failed to read it all. Typical "right" behavior to ignore fact and just go blantently spew whatever venom you choose. You do the have the right of opinion, you have the right to say what you wish. Your do not have the right however to deny the law to all. End of the line.

Proudtobecatholic.
That is a damn old and lame attempt to derail the debate. Group marriages would be fine, but siblings, I am not sure about that, I feel it would be wrong. I am not sure how the constitution would proceive it.

Equal treatment under the law is the only thing that matters in these cases. If there is a portion of this country that gets excluded then the terrorist truly do win.

The preachers of tolerance show the least of it

Wow, the people in California voted, now get over it. Massachusetts didn't have the chance to vote. But we got over that. Didn't we.
Move On, you intolerant people.

To Proudtobecatholic and to James:

Concerning marriage between siblings or other very close relatives, it is my belief that since there are some concerns as to the health of any children that would be the result of such a marriage, the courts would find that it is within the power of the legislature to outlaw such marriages. Of course, as the right likes to point out endlessly, there are no such concerns regarding same-sex marriage.

Are you aware that there are many states in this country that will allow first cousins to marry as long as they can provide proof that they are incapable of conceiving children (such as due to age), but will not allow it if the couple is capable of conceiving children.

There are also some concerns involving polygamy, although whether these concerns are enough to justify outlawing polygamy on constitutional grounds is questionable. The concerns are the question of force. Suppose a man who has one wife now wants to take a second wife. Should the first wife have a right to refuse to allow it? And if so, how can the legislature guarantee that the first wife is not being pressured into agreeing against her will? And if not, then how can the legislature protect the rights of the first wife? How will property be divided if the man dies? There are a lot of questions that would have to be debated and answered and codified into any law allowing polygamy.

I think Obama is trying to say is that although we all have differences of opinion on some issues, we are still one nation of which he will be president. Just because he is at odds with one group on one issue doesn't mean he isn't in step with that person on other issues. I think what he is trying to say that although we are a nation with many opinions on many issues, we are still one nation.

Candace Nocera @ 31, It may surprise you that we all are, just like you, able to type an occasional response on a blog AND provide what we can to various charities. I don't see where anyone was calling this a "CRISIS" but some of us find civil rights to be an important topic.

As for the salvation army bell - I won't be hearing them ring. I disagree with what i understand their employment policies are. My money goes to other charities who do the same work while managing not to discriminate in employment.

alring,

You don't have to tolerate any thing, you just have no right to deny people thier rights and priviledges under the law

KJR is Right On!

Food for thought:
The dictionary defines homosexuality as: “Having a desire for someone of the same sex [gender] or the act of having sex with someone of the same sex [gender]. In other words it is a sexual behavior carried out with someone of the same gender. It did not define it as two people20of the same gender who happens to love one another. Simply put, both homosexuality and heterosexuality is about sex. One sexual expression is perfectly in line with how nature has designed our bodies for reproductive purposes (it called heterosexuality) and the other is not (this one is called homosexuality) . Neither sexual expression has anything to do with love. Both are sexual behaviors expressed through physical contact between two or more people.

Sexual activity may be an expression of love, but sex itself is not love. All mature adults know that sex and love are two different things. Pure love most often is not expressed in a sexual manner. Loving parents who love their children will give their life for their child, but they never have sex with that child. Soldiers have been known to give their lives for a fellow soldier (of the same gender), the ultimate expression of love according to the Bible ( St. John 15:13), but they never have sex with that individual. Brothers and sisters have sacrificed their lives for their siblings by donating their organs to save the life of the other, while others have left their entire estate to their siblings, but in both cases these expressions of love never included sex. The act of sex is merely a physical behavior that is most often expressed in the privacy of ones home and therefore should not be protected under Civil Rights Laws. Its proper place of protection should be covered by privacy laws, not Civil Rights Laws. Our laws should be designed to discourage criminal behavior, not endorse private sexual behavior. When gays said they were born this way and compared themselves with African Americans, one black child wrote:

My sexual act did not make me black
This is something the gays cannot say.
For it is a fact that their sexual act,
Is why they call themselves gay.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is a sexual behavior expressed, it is not a physical status like black or white skin.

Having said that, Am I Homo-Phobic if I do not like, accept or feel comfortable with the gay’s sexual expression (behavior)? Homo-Phobic meaning: fearing or hating the gay person or the homosexual individ ual who engage in such behavior? Before answering this question, please let me share with you other behaviors that I am uncomfortable with.

1. I do not like (or I am uncomfortable with) heterosexuals who affectionately make out in public when they can do it in the privacy of their homes – Am I Hetero-Phobic and hate heterosexuals?
2. I do not like (or I am uncomfortable with) individuals who cheat on their spouse – This means I must have a Spousal Cheater-Phobic and hate or fear spouses that cheat.
3. I do not like it (and I feel uncomfortable) when my sons sag their pants like gang members – Perhaps I hate or fear my sons . Shall we call this Sons’-Phobic?
4. I do not like it (and I am uncomfortable) when drivers cut other drivers off on the freeway – Am I Driver-Phobic and hate or fear drivers?
5. I do not like it when my African American brothers and sisters use the “N” word. This must mean I am Afro-Phobic and fear and hate my African American brothers and sisters?
6. I do not like and I am uncomfortable with a lot of my own bad habits – Am I Self –Phobic and hate and fear myself?

I guess you get my point. Just because I d o not like certain behaviors or that I am uncomfortable with certain behaviors, does not mean that I fear or hate the person who engage in such behavior.

We must not allow others to label us or put a guilt trip on those of us who do not like, accept or feel comfortable with the gay lifestyle. I’m sure that even within the gay community there are certain behaviors that they do not like among their own group, but does that mean they fear or hate the person demonstrating such behavior? Do I hate or fear gays? Absolutely not! If I ever saw anyone attempting to physically harm a gay person, as a Christian, like the “Good Samaritan in the Bible, I would be one of the first to come to their rescue, not because they are gay, but because they, like myself are loved by God (St John 3:16).

Final thoughts: As stated before, gays often compare their experience with the African American experience, but African Americans have never had the option of putting their black skin in the closet to escape or avoid persecution - and we were never hated because of our behavior, we were hated simply because we were black.

AMEN JOHN!!!!!!!!

To John:
Notice that the first definition of homosexuality does not require sexual activity, but only the desire to have sex with someone. Therefore, despite what you wrote, homosexuality is much much more than the sexual act. There are many homosexuals who have never once had a sexual experience. A person's sexuality is defined by the gender of the person's sexual desire, regardless of his sexual experience.

Thus, the poem written by "one black child" is simply inaccurate. There is also strong evidence that a person's sexuality is defined long before puberty, possibly even in the womb, but definately before the desire manifests itself in the thoughts of the person. A person IS born gay or straight or bi just as surely a person is born White or Black or Asian.

Homosexuality is MORE than just a "sexual behavior expressed". It is an integral part of the person's psyche or soul if you will, and is just as much part of who he is as his skin color.

Likewise, homophobia is much more than just a fear of homosexuals. It is actually defined as a fear of homosexuality. That may or may not entail fear of homosexuals. In most cases, it does not. What it does entail is a fear of what societal acceptance of homosexuality will do to society. It is expressed in such ridiculous comments as "If the entire world were gay, the human race would die in a generation" (ridiculous since no matter how much we accept homosexuality as a normal part of human existance, the entire world is not going to become gay), or Pat Robertson's famous statement that God will destroy Orlando with a hurricane because Walt Disney extends same-sex partner benefits to its gay employees.

But also it is expressed in some not so obviously ridiculous statements such as "If we legalize gay marriage, then that will destroy the basic fabric of American society and the family."

So, no, not liking to see the intimate contact between two people does not make you homophobic. However, if you feel that seeing two men holding hands while walking down the street will traumatize children beyond redemption, then you likely are homophobic.

As to your final though, concerning the ability of gays to hide in the closet, something Blacks were never able to do, your conclusion does not follow. Being forced to hide in a closet just to avoid discrimination and persecution is in itself a form of persecution. Every person should be free to be himself in public. A gay man should have just as much right to hold hands with his partner in public as a straight man has.

When gays point out the similarities between the discrimination endured by generations of Blacks in this country and the discrimination gays currently endure, they are pointing out that the arguments against things like gay marriage or against anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing or the workplace are the exact same arguments Whites were using a generation ago to argue against interracial marriage or against anti-discrimination on the basis of skin color in housing or the workplace. The exact same argument. Only the victims are different.

Marriage is a civil-union blessed by God. It is a Christian concept… not a secular, civil concept. Marriage is God’s blessing on the union of 1 man and 1 woman. When people stand before the alter of God to be married, they are asking God’s blessing on their union. If they were not asking for God’s blessing on their union, it wouldn’t be a marriage; it would be just a civil-union.
The Bible clearly states that God says homosexuality is an abomination. Why would homosexuals be so desirous for God’s blessing on something God calls an abomination? One can’t have it both ways… if one wants God’s blessing on one’s union, then abide by God’s law that states marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If one doesn’t believe this, then why would one want to enter into the sanctity of God’s marriage?
If you reject God’s verdict that homosexuality is an abomination, then also reject His concept of marriage. Call it a civil-union, work toward getting your civil-rights recognized and be done with it. Don’t ask for God’s blessing on something he condemns!! Homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, but these are civil rights, not religious rights… not the religious right to a marriage blessed by God.
Finally... God doesn’t condemn homosexuals… God condemns homosexuality. God loves the sinner, but God hates the sin. God is reaching out to each of us, waiting patiently for us to turn from our sins - whatever they are - and to turn to Him. It’s okay to have homosexual feelings, but don’t act on them… pray that He will help you turn from sinful acts. In the same way that heterosexuals can have sexual feelings for someone who in not their spouse. If they do not act on those feelings and they ask for God’s help, He will forgive them. It’s really that simple… no yelling, no hate, no anger. We are all sinners, yet God loves us all. Merry Christmas!!