The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Some final thoughts on Warren

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

JonF — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:25:00 -0000

Re: They both seem to see marriage as this wonderful thing that ends loneliness, makes people happy, and reduces or eliminates sexual promiscuity. It can do that, but it can also fail to do that a pretty great percentage of the time.

You don't need a marriage license to have a relationship drama and tragedy. Perhaps marriage and relationships in general are the triumph of hope over experience, but most of the human race either seems to be with someone, or wants to be.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Thomas R — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:55:36 -0000

"be perpetually single and alone, at least publicly."

Single people are not necessarily lonely. I'm not lonely and I don't plan to ever marry.

It's interesting that the view of both Same-sex marriage opponents and supporters are more like each other than either is like me. They both seem to see marriage as this wonderful thing that ends loneliness, makes people happy, and reduces or eliminates sexual promiscuity. It can do that, but it can also fail to do that a pretty great percentage of the time. If same-sex marriage ended up like opposite-sex-marriage it'll mean 40-50% ending in divorce, spousal abuse, adultery, one partner giving the other STDs, one partner compromising themselves into non-existence to please the other, etc. It does have the advantage that there will always be someone there to remind you to take your anti-depressants or stop you from suicide. Also, in our age, that you choose it whereas many single people are not single by choice.

Granted I'm in an unfortunate middle-ground in some ways. I have too strong a same-sex attractions to really work in a monastery, or so I think I've always wondered how I'd ask about that, but I have too strong of opposite-sex attractions to avoid all temptation of marriage. As unappealing as marriage seems to me sex and good insurance has some appeal. Still 31 and so far I'm managing my "lonely" life of eight nephews, three great-nephews, two nieces, three sisters, two brothers, and several academic acquaintances.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

carlos — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:01:26 -0000

Heads up, don't be a victim of identiy theft - Panda Internet Security 2009 is selling for $20 when it usually sells for $80. It will protect you from over 2 million viruses, spyware and rootkits and has a web filter for the kids. This deal is only good until December 31st

http://www.tinyurl.com/a3cyw6

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

darren — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:25:14 -0000

Look! Obama's strategy is working. Warren converted!!!!

http://www.tmz.com/2008/12/23/rick-warren-out-of-the-closet/

Oh ye of little faith.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Peter — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:42:57 -0000

Thank you, lupe! I never once said that people do not have the right to express their opinions. I would never presume to silence people's speech. But I refuse to allow people's beliefs, and the expression of those beliefs, to determine my rights as an American citizen. Tracy W, I would ask you this: I'm sure there are plenty of people in the US who don't think women should have the right to vote, or blacks for that matter. Does this mean we should have a national vote on whether women or blacks should vote? Of course not. But it's A-OK to have a vote on my rights.

And I understand why it's a social necessity for people to disagree agreeably. But how exactly am I supposed to reach out to people who dehumanize me? Why is it that gay folks are the ones being chastised for calling out other people's bigotry and hatred? I, for one, am tired of being tolerant of other people's intolerance. We need to call out bigotry wherever we see it and not excuse it because of a person's beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

lupe — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:09:21 -0000

Tracy W,

I don't think Peter is saying people should be denied their free speech rights. I think he's saying his right to be equal under the law should be beyond discussion. As in, we supposedly have equal rights under Constitution, so we should no longer be debating whether gays should have equal rights.

Free speech lets people say lots of things. For example, the NAACP and the ADL and the ACLU say that people are equal under the law regardless of race or religion. The First Amendment lets the Aryan brotherhood and the KKK freely argue the opposite. There are other, less egregious examples, but these are real.

Yet no matter what race you are or what religion you practice, it is reasonable for you to say (as Peter did), that "my rights and equality under the law are not open to discussion." Despite this freedom to disagree, our country professes a commitment to equal rights. Gay people have a right to believe in that commitment and what it means. Even if it takes the country a while to live up to its promises.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Tracy W — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:20:25 -0000

Peter, the reason you are expected to disagree agreeably is courtesy. I am confident that there is someone out there who strongly objects to some views you hold (for example, I have run into atheists who think that all theists are inherently wrong, and Christians who think that all non-Christians are inherently wrong, and Muslims who think that all non-Muslims are inherently wrong, so I am confident that someone believes your religious views are utterly wrong). Society gets along better with all these inherent disagreements if some courtesy is extended even to people you despise and think are utterly wrong.

Also, how do you reconcil your stance that your rights and equality before the law are not open to discussion, with freedom of speech? Do you not think that freedom of speech is a civil right? The argument for freedom of speech itself has had to be made by the ACLU over and over again, and there is a long series of litigation over every other right I know of. You are welcome to not care what other people think on this topic, but to just assert that your rights are beyond discussion is rather contradictory.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

lupe — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:04:05 -0000

I should add, many of those opposed to equal rights for gays, but who nevertheless say they are not "hateful" or "homophobic" nevertheless don't approve of our rights to participate fully i society. They would apparently prefer us to (1) marry someone we don't want to be married to (i.e. a person of the opposite sex), despite the cruelty this inflicts on the both members of that relationship, (2) or be perpetually single and alone, at least publicly.

Maybe there's another option they would accept, but I can't think of one. They may not "hate" us, but they sure would hurt us.

I'm all for working together with Obama on all of this, even if it means putting up with Rick Warren. But I don't want people to belittle the significance of gay rights to do it.

Once discrimination is called out for what it is, and discrimination against gays is finally being publicly called out, it needs to be dealt with in a manner consistent with our American values. Sure there's an economic crisis going on, but as Obama said, as president, he will have to deal with more than one thing at a time. I hope he makes good on this one.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

lupe — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:54:11 -0000

The marriage issue isn't only about the semantic issue of whether couples should be called "married" or "domestically partnered" or "civil unioned." It's a bigger issue - are gays equal under the law or not.

This country is all about family and relationships. The first thing you see on a candidate's web page is a picture of his or her family. "Real" participation in many communities means showing up places as couples, participating at the PTA or at your children's schools. Showing up at the office party with your significant other. It's awkward to do all of these things as a gay person, and in some cases it can cause you to get beat up, lose your job, or lose your friends.

And it's harder when even the law says your relationship doesn't count. You can still fire people for being gay in many states. You can still refuse to rent houses to people who are gay in many states. Gay people still can't visit their partners in hospitals in many states. The list goes on and on.

Gay marriage is about saying, hey, you may not like us, and we can't change that, but at least we can stake a claim to equality and dignity as human beings under the LAW.

Make no mistake -- society uses the law to reinforce prejudices all the time. As the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that struck down Texas' sodomy statutes:

" Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. . . . The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged."

Denying gay couples the dignity of marriage isn't the same as making them criminal, but the same principle applies -- if you are second-class under the law, that second-class legal designation makes people feel justified treating our relationships as second-class.

Would people have us live alone in our own ghettos forever? Pretend like we don't want to participate as full members of the workplace (try being in the closet at work. you can't talk to anyone about anything, because they all talk about their families or relationships), or like we don't want to attend our straight friends' weddings or family get-togethers? Are we allowed to participate constructively in civil life, or not?

We have to make the case for ourselves, every time, that it's okay for us to participate in civil society, and that means participating with our significant others and often with our children. We often have to do this without the support of our families, without the support of the churches we grew up with, and without the support of the community around us. When we live in a country that supposedly offers equal protection to all, it's a shame that we also have to do it without the support of the law.

Equality under the law is abstract, yes, but it matters greatly to those who are trying to find their place as members of this society. And it matters psychologically to those who feel different. Equality under the law could make a big difference to that teenage kid sitting in his room in middle America, wondering if he's worth anything even though he's gay. He may not have his family on his side, or his church, or his community. But he's a human being, and this is America. Give him the law.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

lightmonke — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:45:52 -0000

As "a gay", I'd be content with *national* civil union. I'm not attached to the word "marriage", but to the concept: that if I marry in MA, then come home to MD, I am still legally considered married. Civil unions as now constituted are limited to the boundaries of the state that grants them.

About Prop 8 and the "will of the people": there's a lovely quote from James Brovard: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." This is why we have things like the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--because majorities cannot be counted on to safeguard the rights of minorities.

TNC--thanks for creating an on-going forum for discussion of these issues. Deep gratitude.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Peter — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:31:49 -0000

I think a lot of people, Lorran specifically, need to read up on the concept of the tyranny of the majority in relation to our country's founding and history. It does not matter if a majority of people in the US oppose equal rights and protection for gays. People's civil rights are not subject to the will of the majority.

And, Lorran, yes you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that you can point to the Bible and claim that it tells you to oppress the gays. It doesn't make it right. The Bible tells me that slavery is OK. It tells me that victims of leprosy are subhuman. Does this mean it's morally acceptable to own slaves and shun those with leprosy? And don't get me started about the utter hypocrisy of religious folk who throw Leviticus in my face to justify their bigotry and hatred. Please don't tell me (a Jew) about the proscriptions of Leviticus while eating a ham sandwich and wearing clothes of mixed fibers.

What really gets me about the whole Warren garbage is that gays are being told that we have to disagree agreeably with bigots. That it's just a matter of a difference of opinion. Well, screw that. My rights and equality before the law are not open to discussion. I don't really care what other people think on this topic. They're my damn rights and I'm entitled to them as a citizen of this country. End of story.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Tracy W — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:35:04 -0000

If homosexuality something you're born with, then to be against it is bigotry, just like those who are racist and sexist. They hate the entire person because of some quality that they are born with, and to hate a gay person for being gay falls into that category.

Firstly, I don't think that sexists or racists are necessarily against the entire person. Sexists are people who believe that women, or men, are inferior to members of the other sex and should have different legal rights. My great-grandfather hauled my grandmother out of her job as a journalist because he believed it wasn't appropriate for a woman, but he didn't hate her entire person, he had supported her through university. He was still sexist.

One of my great-uncles says the most racist things about Maori, despite being 1/4 Maori himself, and having (voluntarily) married a Maori woman, and being extremely proud of his Maori grandchildren and great-grandchild. No one looking at his face when he talks about his great-grandson could believe he hates that boy, but my great-uncle is still racist.

On the other side, I was born with dyspraxia. I'm against it. However I don't hate my entire person. You can call me a bigot if you like, but expanding the definition like that rather takes the sting out of it. There's nothing wrong in being against something you're born with. The reason for a lack of prejudice about homosexuality is that there's no evidence that homosexuality causes mental problems separate from society's judgments (and people have looked for such evidence), so in that case what business is it of yours and mine who the neighbour chooses to play hide-the-sausage with? (Assuming consenting adults of course).

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

dmaz — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:51:20 -0000

Warren and Christ-followers believe the Bible and believe the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

They believe killing babies in the mother's womb is wrong.

They believe divorce is a sin (yet many Saddleback church members are divorced).

The Bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

They also believe that LYING is a sin... so is GOSSIP.

They don't CHOOSE to believe this.

If they want to follow Christ and believe the Bible, they MUST believe this.

Many of them are not trying to be haters, they are just trying to follow what they believe.

Warren's church is filled with "sinners" of every variety.

Keep in mind that EVERY follow of Jesus SHOULD have a deep understanding that all human beings are sinners (fall short of the glory of God).

But know that people can love each other and not agree with some of their lifestyle choices. (Hey, Jesus did!) Can't 2 very different camps CARE for each other as human beings while agreeing to disagree?

Non-Bible Followers could offer the same love, tolerance & understanding to Bible-followers that the Gay community would like to see from the Non-Gay community.

To quote a great piece of literature "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Lee — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:09:28 -0000

I'm sick of this issue. Back and forth, bigot this, racist that, buses to be thrown under, people being slapped in the face, punched in the gut, wishing they would have voted for Palin (boy, talk about irrational), outrage, outrage, outrage. And then nothing. What is the point to all of this? Venting? Hoping sheer will will alter space-time? Warren stands up, says two minutes of prayer, sits down, and the inauguration moves on. What is it that people are planning to do on Jan 21st?

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

darren — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:11:19 -0000

For GiorgioNYC:

Dear Georgio, I feel your pain (no sarcasm), but your uncritical rant makes my case. First, I never spoke of civil unions. I spoke of equal protection. Second, since you raise the issue, there's no uniform definition of civil unions. They vary from state-to-state for states that have such statutes. You seem to be thinking about domestic partnerships that certainly do not achieve the standard of equal protection. I am with you on a complete rejection of these.

I believe, however, Vermont's civil union statute is recognized under state law as being equal to traditional marriage. No, I'm not saying you should move to Vermont. I'm saying your facts are skewed and your fixation on marriage is screwed.

To be absolutely clear, regardless of the name or tradition, I'm for equal protection/recognition under the law. Hell, I'm more for gay rights than you are.

Again, it's just a simple fact that you're going to get more bigotry and resistance if you insist on appropriating marriage for gay couples. Think about it. If the term "marriage" had not been used in the California case but had granted every thing your heart desired, Proposition 8 would have no basis for even being on the ballot. I hear Attorney General Brown has changed his mind because, get this: proposition 8 violates California's constitution in terms of equal protection. That's why it's likely to be overturned.

But you go ahead. Fight for the symbolic, the religious and the quaint marriage vows. But allow persons like Obama and Brown to work miracles in their own way.

To keep insisting that Obama is a bigot is unfounded and simply revealing what could be your own deep intolerance. Like miracles, bigotry works in mysterious ways.

Peace.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Steve Blake — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:33:33 -0000

http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2008/12/rick-warrens-hero-wa-criswell-also-used.html

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Darkrose — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:06:24 -0000

Okay. This discussion has been going on forever, and I'd like to get to what I think is the bottom line:

Given that I do not follow a religion that condemns homosexuality, and that since we still don't have an established religion in this country, I am therefore not bound to follow the dictates of any religion that does condemn homosexuality, and that with the exception of my wife who occasionally posts here, I don't know any of the commenters here, how does the fact that I married another woman on September 5 affect any of you in any way, shape, or form? And if it doesn't, then why is it so important to those of you who say you're against gay marriage that you want to deliberately make me and some 35,999 other people--most of whom you probably don't know either--feel like second-class citizens, and make us unhappy by destroying our families?

Because in the end, that's what it's about: individual people who are going to be hurt. It's about my wife and I running the City of Heroes Winter Event last night while the chili was simmering, and about putting up the Christmas lights and squirting the kitten with the water bottle to keep him from climbing them, and emptying the cat boxes and vacuuming and shopping for Christmas and New Year's dinner. It's about doing the things that every other married couple does--all the while knowing that there are people who don't know you, but who still think you don't deserve the same rights that they do because you and your spouse have the same wobbly bits.

So, all of you who "don't believe in gay marriage", please give me specific examples of how my marriage threatens you to the point where mine has to stop existing. I want to understand this.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

atlantapril — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:44:12 -0000

Maybe we're mixing up forests and trees here. When something seems so right to us, it's difficult to realize that others can rightfully believe the polar opposite.

Perhaps it's time to try the "to me" qualifier to our arguments. For example, Giorgia wrote, "Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible." Add "to me" to the end of his sentence and it now reads, "Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible to me." It does not mean that the choice is indefensible - only that it is indefensible to Giorgio.

The next time you make a declarative statement that you just know is THE truth, why not add "to me" to the end of your sentence. Then remember that your neighbors, friends, family members and other Americans may feel as passionately and might be just as wrong (or just as right) as you.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

charles — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:38:39 -0000

"Yes. If you support fewer rights for your neighbor, you are a bigot."

This gets it right exactly. To all those people who said:

"I'm mad that just because I want less marriage rights for gay people I get called a bigot..."

-your problem is with the dictionary. If you support less rights, in marriage or anything else, for gay people, you are BY DEFINITION, supporting bigotry against gay people. I love Barack Obama but his position against gay marriage (a political not personal one I assume) is by definition a bigoted position.

Trying to justify it only makes it worse. The comparisons made here of gay people to pedophiles and practitioners of incest only prove the point: if you equate gay people to pedaphiles YOU ARE A BIGOT. If you equate gay people to practitioners of incest, YOU ARE A BIGOT.

If this is how you feel, own it, be proud of it, shout it from the blogtops. But don't blame it on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said NOT ONE WORD against homosexuality. So don't you dare call Jesus a bigot, don't hide your bigotry behind the cloak of one of the most forgiving and loving characters ever to walk the face of the earth.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

GiorgioNYC — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:22:43 -0000

"When gay activists embraced a strategy to pursue "marriage" versus equal protection, they opened themselves to a mountain of resistance and, essentially, handed bigots their most viable weapon--tradition"

This is so staggeringly obtuse the mind reels. Yeah, it's all about us queers destroying your wonderful tradition. As several here have articulately pointed out, marriage IS "equal protection." Civil unions aren't, which is why Connecticut approved same-sex marriage, and why New Jersey soon will do the same -- because civil unions are separate and uneqal, as the experience of civilly-united couples has made clear.

And as far as "handing" bigots a weapon -- our very existence affronts them. They're opposed to homosexuality in general terms and to all civil rights measures. And since when is it the responsibility of a stigmatized and oppressed group to not offend bigots?

Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible. This guy is a reactionary creep, religious nutjob and a bigot. It's only because he's trashed gays that he got this invitation. Does anyone think that he'd be giving the invocation if he'd said similar things about blacks or Jews?

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Invariant Memory — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:20:14 -0000

sgwhiteinfla said: "One simple straight forward question. What rights would gay couples miss out on in a civil union that they would have in a marriage?"

Here's one for starters: immigration rights for gay bi-national couples. I am a Brit who has been in a relationship with my US boyfriend for eight years. If I were a woman, we would have been married years ago, I would have a green card, end of legal worries, end of story. Alas, I am a man, which means that, instead, we have spent several years and several thousand dollars derailing so many of our other ambitions just so I can stay employed with a company that will sponsor my green card application. We could of course move to the UK, but only by tearing my boyfriend away from his family. This dilemma does not exist for straight couples who want to marry.

And this illustrates the greater point that state civil union laws do not cross state lines. Yes, gays in California enjoy many rights that straight married couples enjoy. But if those CA gays move to Louisiana or even go on vacation to Oklahoma, bye bye civil union rights!

Really, Googling 'civil unions vs marriage' is not very difficult, so I don't understand the persistent ignorance on the differences between the two.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Darkrose — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:12:58 -0000

TNC: Forgive me, I find it hard to be rational while watching men of the cloth cynically claim the abstract mantle of family values, while attempting to erase actual families. How in the world are these people not evil?

I think evil is a perfectly good word to use, along with mean-spirited, petty, meddling, busybodies--and yes, bigots. The summary for someone who wants to deliberately hurt someone they don't know, though? Asshole.

That said, TNC...I want to thank you, because that bit I quoted is exactly how I've been feeling since Friday, when I discovered that Ken Fucking Starr had filed suit to destroy my marriage.

Funny, how people were all up in arms over the ad showing the Mormon missionaries coming into the lesbian couples home and tearing up their wedding license, because that's exactly what's happening to around 36,000 of us right now.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

darren — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:57:51 -0000

I am puzzled by the free association that gay rights advocates use to embrace civil (read: black) rights when, in fact, they continue to diminish one of its fundamental concepts: equal protection under the law.

When gay activists embraced a strategy to pursue "marriage" versus equal protection, they opened themselves to a mountain of resistance and, essentially, handed bigots their most viable weapon--tradition. This is akin to MLK marching for the explicit "right" for black men to marry white women (a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit) and expecting no resistance at the lunch counter.

When making a direct assault on a person's traditions, it's a bit unreasonable not to expect them to fight back. But this is where the whole "marriage" strategy runs amok. First, gay advocates blamed black people for passing Prop. 8 (ludicrous, statistically impossible). Second, they blame fundamentalist Christians for not protecting the sanctity of marriage according to their views (just silly, this is what fundamentalists do). And third, they slam (black) people sympathetic to their cause when they make attempts to reduce conflicts and expand understanding (tragic, when in a democracy, you can always use a little help). The strategy to reach out and embrace your enemy in order to gain influence is a quintessential civil rights strategy. Ask MLK. Ask Mandela. Ask Obama.

What we are witnessing here is an attempt to obfuscate the obvious—the attack on traditional marriage strategy is on the ropes. Once bound to such ideological traps, the so-called victims reject what is in their best interest. They become incapable of making distinctions--like the clear differences between Warren and Obama. Everyone is the enemy. It's marriage or nothing. In this pathological state, even equality under the law is suspect.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Rainy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:43:05 -0000

The point is Barack Obama believes he can find a consensus with people on the other side of the aisle. What pisses me off is people telling him he can't do that, because it offends them. Well, it doesn't offend him. He has always proved himself to be a better person than most humans on this earth combined. This is a person who does not hold a grudge and he expects others to do the same.

I wouldn't have chosen Warren, hell, I wouldn't have chosen any kind of religious person, because I think religion is a crock. That said, people can be angry until the sun don't sun, but until we get a consensus or Congress grows some balls just legalize marriage for all consenting adults, there is always going to be somebody suing to make sure gay marriages are nullified. The majority population did not have any role is enacting the civil rights act, it was Congress. So that's how it should be on this issue.

Re: Some final thoughts on Warren

Darkrose — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:07:07 -0000

Hey G-man,

Thanks so much for voting for Prop 8! Now my wife and I get to be in legal limbo. We're really looking forward to spending the holidays wondering whether we're still going to be married come this time next year!

It must make you feel really good to know that you helped make thousands of your fellow Californians miserable. I spent most of Friday in tears because I just couldn't fathom how someone could be mean-spirited enough to try to break apart two people who happen to love each other. You go!