Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek: Is Gay Outrage Over Rick Warren Justified

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 03:46 PM
Original message
Newsweek: Is Gay Outrage Over Rick Warren Justified
http://www.newsweek.com/id/176269

prob a dupe, but I didn't see it....

The Power Of Prayer

Is the firestorm over Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation warranted? Two gay writers debate.
Chris Crain and Leah Mcelrath Renna
Newsweek Web Exclusive

Largely greeted with good will during the transition, President-elect Obama is getting a taste of hostility over his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation. A number of leading lesbian and gay voices, including Rep. Barney Frank, have criticized the selection of the megapastor, who has spoken out against same-sex marriage. Warren, in a statement Thursday, thanked Obama "for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn't agree on every issue, to offer the invocation. Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America." In that vein, NEWSWEEK asked two members of the gay community to debate the Warren controversy. Chris Crain is a blogger and journalist who has written about Warren on his blog. Leah McElrath Renna is a psychotherapist and managing partner of Renna Communications who has covered the topic on The Huffington Post. Excerpts:

Chris Crain: Leah, you and others are criticizing the selection of Rick Warren as a betrayal of Barack Obama's promise to unify the country, but the way you define "unity" is really very exclusionary. The inaugural committee has promised "an inclusive and accessible inauguration that ... unites the nation around our shared values and ideals." You argue Warren should be disqualified under that standard because his gay-marriage opposition is a "value and ideal" you don't share. But Obama's point was to unify us around areas of agreement, and here you are focused on disagreement, so where's the betrayal? For "unifying the nation" to mean anything, there must be "inclusion" for conservatives, including the many millions like Warren who oppose gay marriage. Excluding those with whom we disagree is the antithesis of unifying.

Even if you suspect the whole "unity" thing is really just about politics, the selection of Warren still makes good sense, including for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. It is a stroke of political brilliance to recruit a conservative megapastor in support of a president-elect who is arguably the most pro-gay, pro-choice and progressive in our history. That's the kind of political dividend you get from focusing on common ground—like Warren's support for the fight against global warming and AIDS.

/snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. What is "civil" about Warrens' statements on the GBTL Community women, and Jews?
How is he a model of civility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. 50-50
Two gay writers debate.

It's either or.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, that sounded suitably forced
Like most of our discussion about this issue.

Amazing how easy it is for BS to get a fair chance while the truth is derided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sorry the one side displayed was enough
to turn me off. I don't care to read any more crap today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. disagreeing is one thing
but equating gay relationships to incest or pedophilia is what folks are up in arm about

can't wait to see what disruptions folks plan for the invocation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC