The Power Of Prayer

I applaud Obama???s choice of Warren. It was a brilliant political move to include a large number of people that he had alienated with his pro-gay stance. And there are a lot more of them than there are gay people, so politically, it makes all the sense in the world.

To say that Warren does not reflect the mainstream views on gay marriage is a bold faced lie. Just look at the passage of proposition 8! That was passed in the most liberal of states. As if that were not sufficient to convince you, 30 other states also placed bans on gay marriage. So what planet are you living on to suggest that Warren???s views are not that of mainstream America in regards gay rights?

Obama is simply reacting strategically to the mass of Evangelical Internet postings claiming that he will "persecute" Christians, that he is the Antichrist foretold in prophesy, etc. Rick Warren is a celebrity religion huckster and being anti-gay is part of the program for those types. Lyndon Johnson had to make "deals" with white supremecists in order to advance civil rights for blacks, and this does not mean that Obama has gone homophobic.

Well, you know, they had their panties in a twist anyway, so it was probably a bad idea to hurt their feelings at this time. There's hope yet, maybe Obama will invite a Korean Gay Jew to give the benediction at the inauguration. That would balance the whole issue while also adding some diversity.

Obama made a mistake politically. Yes, gays and lesbians have the right to be outraged. Warren equates same-sex marriage with statutory rape, incest, and polygamy (which, by the way, are usually all heterosexual institutions). The commentator who calls Obama the most progressive, pro-choice, pro-gay president in history is just as deceived as others who felt he was some wildly leftist individual. The only reason why gays and lesbians lack the right to be upset is that they should not have fallen for Obama's silky words. He opposes same-sex marriage himself, and has never taken any bold positions. The media is still asleep on this joke. So check out blogs for more cutting edge analysis.

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/embracing-uncle-good-but-homophobic-why.html

My problem is not whether Rick Warren is anti-gay and lesbian and anti-women's rights, . . . my problem is that there are thousands of non-celebrity ministers, priests, rabbis, "religious" who could have given the invocation at the inauguration without offending or insulting anyone. If President Elect Obama was attempting to make a statement that showed his tolerance of those with whom he disagrees, then why not have Reverend Wright give the invocation?

If you are looking for a way to protest the selection of Rick Warren, go to: my.barackobama.com/page/unsubscribe/

@wonderboy1069
Sorry wonderless, you are simply stupid. A pedophile involves a child that doesn't know better (one could take advantage of them) that is always wrong as they are innocent. You, on the other hand *should know better*, thats not innocent, thats plain ignorance and bigotry. Or what we call 'stupid'. You have no excuse for compromising two consenting adults and commitment to each other. If you feel that your own marriage is threatened, you need to look at your own problems which are completely that: your own problems. Keep your business and pursuit of life liberty and happiness out of my house and I'll be sure to do the same for you.

My point is this: Those who champion the gay-marriage movement would like for their compatriots to believe that a line will be drawn once they're successful. Could American adults possibly be that naive? This train has no brakes, man! Next we'll be wondering why we imprison, say, pedophiles, many of whom plead, as do homosexuals, that they're simply "born to do it". In this context, who are we to deny freedom to the poor soul who not only has no control over the urge to molest babies, but claims that such behavior is a BIRTHRIGHT? Do you see where this is going? EVERYONE will want in on da act! No brakes, no line..get the picture?

Tell you what..after we've granted the homosexual community license to redefine marriage, why not move forward and grant the same to polygamists? Since we Americans should no longer limit the joys of marital bliss to a man and a woman, then why not expand the number of participants? Think about it..the possibilities are ENDLESS! Then, and only then, can we as a society REALLY progress to the pinnacle of inclusion: Holy Matrimony afforded to those poor, misunderstood practitioners of BESTIALITY! After all, what possible harm could it cause? We have a consenting adult and his/her loyal and loving "partner", be it a nice-and-fuzzy Collie or a rough-and-tumble Rottweiler..yeah! I mean, so long as the dumb animal in question suffers no pain and is otherwise treated well, what moral laws would be broken, now that we as a nation have taken it upon ourselves to redefine morality to suit our every desire? Surely the progressive-minded GLBT's of our great land wouldn't want to be seen as Exclusionaries, so they, like the rest of the citizenry, would gladly embrace this incredible breakthrough in cultural mores. America moving FAST-forward..what a country! I can see it now..POLYBESTIALITY! Our grandchildren will look back on our breathtaking social achievements with pride and gratitude, so COUNT ME IN!!!

Lets finish this off,as NEWSWEAK had a problem.

''Ye have made a commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.. Ye hypocrites. Well did Elias say of you that you draw near to me with your lips,but your heart is far from me, for in vain do you worship me,teaching for doctrines , the commandments of men''

Matthew 15 :7-9.

Is gay marriage a commandment of God or Man?

If Gods,as He has readily assured in Warrens Bible,what damned business do you have to judge him by the standard that you also now judge others? That you declaim that they not judge YOU by? Or that you violate Jesus'own admonition not to judge,and verily:

''To shake the dust off thy sandals,and Go Thy Way''.

Who made a gay God?

''Where were you,when I made the world''?

Job.38:1 :39

The Ist Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

''Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion ,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof''

Homosexuals [ as well as NEWSWEAK] would do well to keep the above secular stricture in mind,if not the religious Christian Bible].


PS:Where does Jesus mention anyone other than a ''wife''in the entire NT? Where [Matthew ] does He state to ''judge that which is right''. Is Warren performing this task in his position? Is Obama,for this matter?

I am outraged by the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration! Of course the firestorm over this choice is warranted! A man who equates committed loving same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia is an abomination in his own right. I for one will not be supporting watching the inauguration as long as that man is participating. The Gay and Lesbian community should push for a boycott of the event as a statement to Obama that we will not take this lying down.

Since this is a discussion over our communities response to the selection of Rick Warren, it is 100% appropriate that two gay writers debate this issue. This is about the selection of a homophobic religious fanatic to deliver the invocation at an event that is suppose to unite the country in the historic election of the first African American President. The fact that Obama would choose such a divisive figure on this day is ridiculous! Furthermore, the transition teams response to our anger was a complete joke!

Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

In a country where we have a clear separation of church and state, it's amazing that religious views are still being injected into our policy decision-making process. The issue of same-sex marriage is NOT a religious issue. If religious groups insist on holding onto the word "marriage" then the state (local and federal) should be changing ITS terminology completely and ONLY recognizing Civil Unions for ALL. If a church wants to "bless" that union and call it a marriage so be it. The church hangs onto the word "marriage", NO church is forced to "bless" any union (also under the establishment clause). ALL marriages (recognized by the state) would be converted to LEGAL CIVIL UNIONS, and if the church performed the ceremony, the church can recognize it as a marriage or choose not to. It's that simpl.

Civil Unions, grant equal protection and access to ALL citizens, no special treatment - EQUAL treatment. I personally don't want a church recognized union, but I also don't want to go through what I went through 20 years ago when my first partner passed away (after being hit head-on by a drunk driver). We had ALL of our legal paperwork in order, living wills, durable and medical powers of attorney, we owned a home together, and his parents successfully sued to get EVERYTHING overturned through the federal court system. Why? Because we weren't LEGALLY MARRIED! Nobody should EVER have to go through what I did back then.

My partner now, and I have been together for 18 years (and legally married for 5 months) and we have 3 children. I have yet to have ANYONE take me up on my offer to have them explain to my children why THEIR family has less meaning and value than our neighbors because we cannot face them to tell them that people don't think that they are as worthy as their friends' family.