Friday, 19 December 2008

Obama Not Dancing With The Ones Who Brought Him After All….

Didn’t take long for the single-issue voters to realise they’d been shafted, did it?
Gay civil rights advocates and liberal activists were in an uproar today over news that evangelical pastor Rick Warren is to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration next month.

Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life and pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, was an outspoken proponent of a ballot measure to rescind the right of California same-sex couples to wed, and has compared homosexuality to incest and paedophilia.
Which has got a few of the dedicated followers of the Obama Cult in a tizz:
John Aravosis, the editor of AmericaBlog, a liberal website, wondered why Obama chose Warren out of all the preachers in the country.
Well, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was out, for obvious reasons…
"When a Democrat wins the presidency, I would think we could find at least one preacher who isn't a raving homophobe to give the invocation," Aravosis said. "The Obama people know the loss on that prop 8 was a huge issue for the gay community. It is an incredibly raw issue, and then you go and pick one of the top guys behind it?"
Ever been had, Johnnie boy….?

Besides, ‘raving homophobe’ isn’t exactly the right description anyway, as Warren isn’t objecting to civil unions, but to the attempt to highjack the language to force through ‘acceptibility’:
In an interview on Beliefnet.com after the election, Warren said he is opposed not to same-sex civil unions, but to "the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage".

"I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage," he continued. "I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Asked by the interviewer if those are "equivalent to having gays getting married", Warren responded: "I do."
He’s got a point. It isn't marriage, and insisting on calling it marriage is, I suspect, more about sticking two fingers up to the 'straights' than anything else...

3 comments:

DavidNcl said...

It's not so much "about sticking two fingers up to the 'straights'", though that is a component.

For quite a time after broad social acceptance of homosexuality, homosexual men wanted nothing much to do with marriage or indeed straight society.

The drive towards Gay 'marriage' began after a period of excess - bath houses and what not - when those infected with HIV began seeking access to the corporate medical insurance benefits of their sexual partners, at least in the US.

The socially corrosive effects of diluting marriage are a major plus for the cultural Marxists of course.

Ross said...

During the election campaign Barack Obama insisted that her didn't support gay marriage but instead merely supported civil partnerships, so in a sense his position is nominally similar to Warren's.

So in order to feel betrayed by his choice of Warren for the inaugeration suggests that Aravosis had assumed that Obama was lying to win the election.

I had always assumed that was the case but I'm not an Obama supporter.

JuliaM said...

"The drive towards Gay 'marriage' began after a period of excess - bath houses and what not - when those infected with HIV began seeking access to the corporate medical insurance benefits of their sexual partners, at least in the US."

Interesting...

But doesn't the 'civil partnership' option give them that, then? Or, if so, is it not consistent across states?

"...Aravosis had assumed that Obama was lying to win the election."

Well, naturally. He's a politician (and a Democrat), so as long as he was lying to the right people, Aravosis would have no problem with that.

Heh. It's going to be non-stop fun from mid-Jan on, watching this car-wreck presiduncy...