Rev. Joseph Lowery, The Anti-Warren

All this gay marriage discussion leaves one weak in the kness with the TOTAL lack of knowledge. Marriage was originally 'a generational property transfer'---women were considered 'property'---the men were protecting their PROPERTY... The remaining construct is the religious interpretation to keep people in the fold and the legal system wanting the revenue cut....

All the rest is 'mental masterbation'--the rulings based on achine law or environment at the time, the legal system corrupted by the Church, the economics of divorce and property division, it was also a form or slavery sanctioned by the law written by men!

Gay marriage is a way of working for rights inside the system still burdened by 100 years old prejudice laws on the books!!!

The rest is stupid!

At first I was irrate! Then I began to see the position it puts the bigot Warren and his followers in! They can not rail against exclusion and they can only open with the light shining brightly on their contorted belief system but the focus will be on inclusion and it will be closed by Rev J Lowery, the antithesis of bigotry - exclusion- and prejudice! The past old guard rhetoric eclipsed by the FUTURE!
HA!!!

CCNL

Being gay is not a defect. That is your lie. Why don't you stop posting lies on a public forum such as this? It could be misleading to readers who don't know any better.

I do not argue with you to convince you of anything. I argue with you because you are a good foil to bounce my argumenst off of, so that other anti-gay readers, may perhaps be persuaded that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and that being gay is not an abomination or a defect, and that gay people are not a threat to society, and that gay marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage, nor a threat to parental rights over their children.

Just keep up your nonsense. I am perfectly happy responding to you weird silliness, as much as you like.

And we wait for the experts to comment.

In the meantime, DeGeneres, O'Donnell and King all exhibit to the typical layperson, the masculine characteristics of many lesbians.

Dan in the Den is not your typical layperson since biological and theological defects are something he cannot comprehend.

But alot of lesbian womwn do not have masculine characteristics. And alot of straight women do have masculing chracteristics. I mentioned Karen Hughs, off the top of my head, which you did not respond to. She fits perfectly into the mannish lesbian stereotype, yet she represents a point of view which is anti-gay.

I am not saying that you cannot find masucline lesbians, and sissy gay men, but gay people also come in all the variety of straight people. They are not all sterotypically the same. But even if they were, what is your point? What have you proven? Should masculine women or sissy men be ostracized, shunned, cast out, and excluded? On what basis and on what criteria?

I have said, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, that being gay is more than same-sex attraction, and same-sex attraction is more than sex positions. You have never acknowledged these facts; they seem to pass you right by.

Yet in your insistence that lesbians are masculine and man-like and in your consequent inference that gay men are sissies, you are actually admitting that being gay is more complex than same-sex attraction.

So, even if all your sterotypes about gay people are true, that is relevant to this argument, because ... why?

Being anti-gay has nothing to do with masculine women or sissy men; it has to do with emotional and social maladjustment, and sickness in which gay people get scapegoated for everybody else's heartburn.

I am waiting for the the anti-gay people to blame gay people for abortion.

The point is that even the ancient Greeks et al followed by Freud et all followed by anyone in the 21st century with 20/20 vision observed/observes that many lesbians have male characteristics.

Freud was an authority on sexual orientation? I don't think so.

It is archaic to refer to gay people as "inverts." That is part of the problem, the insistence on casting gay people in stereotypes which we know are not true.

What is your point, in appealing to authority that is archaic and antiquted?

Even the Greeks observed the male characteristics of many lesbians: (note also the comments about the "rubbing/masturbating effect".)

From Google:

"The word lesbian in English was originally an adjective referring to the inhabitants of the Greek island of Lesbos and the dialect of Greek from the island. From antiquity Lesbos was associated with female homosexuality because of the homoerotic verse of native poetess Sappho. The ancient Greek rhetorician Lucian used "Lesbian" as an adjective to refer to female homosexuality, but the most common term used by ancient writers was Tribade, which could mean either a masculine woman, or a woman who has sex with another woman. This term continued to be the most common word used in medical literature in up to the 18th century in Europe.[3] The word meant "rubber", on the assumption that female homosexual practices involved sexual stimulation by rubbing together both the genitalia of two women,[4] and referred to sexual practices rather than the modern concept of sexual orientations.[3]

The dominant meaning of "lesbian" until the 19th century still referred to Lesbos rather than any sexual identity. However, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, the French 17th century writer on sexuality, uses the term "lesbian" ("dames et lesbiennes") to mean homosexual women, but according to David M Halperin the word is always still directly linked to the women of Lesbos."

And then there is the invert discussion:

"As female homosexuality became more visible it was described as a medical condition. In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Sigmund Freud referred to female homosexuality as inversion or inverts and characterized female inverts as possessing male characteristics. Freud drew on the "third sex" ideas popularized by Magnus Hirschfeld and others. While Freud admitted he had not personally studied any such "aberrant" patients he placed a strong emphasis on psychological rather than biological causes. Freud's writings did not become well-known in English-speaking countries until the late 1920s."

CCNL

I clicked on you link. What about it proves anything? It is the mere opinion of someone whom I have never heard of before. I do not think that Ellen DeGeneres is particularly man-like. What about President Bush's Born-Again anti-gay assistant, Karen Hughes? She is more masculine than Ellen.

Do you know what a stereotype is? It is when someone such as yourself projects the attributes of a single individual on all the people of that person's group. But the reality is that each and every person set upon the face of the earth, now and in all the past and in all the future, is a unique individual, to whom generalized stereotypes may not, often do not, or probabaly will not apply. If you color all the people that you meet in your life with your own projected sterotypes of what you think they ought to be, instead of trying to find out, what they really are, then it is your loss.

Thankyou once again for being a foil for one of life's lessons.

"The much-publicised marriage three weeks ago of the Australian beauty Portia de Rossi and the male-like US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and the widening recognition of same-sex marriage in the western world raise the possibility that women will have a choice."

http://www.theherald.com.au/blogs/jeff-corbett/men-a-spent-force/1267551.aspx

For Fitz

After all of your writing, writing, writing, you have still never said what is wrong with being gay, what is wrong with gay couples, and what is wrong with gay marriage.

You have never said. Gay marriage will make the status of gay people better, and it will make gay people happier, but how is that going to hurt you, any other individuals, or society, in general? It, of cours, will not.

I cannot imagine any way that gay marriage will have a negative impact on society, and therefore, why would anyone be against it, other than as an automatic, unthinking reflex, resulting from igmornance about gay people.

Your problem is ignorance, that you just plain do not understand. And secondarily, you seek to put an intellectual spin on your arguments, arguing in a manner that is really beyond your sophistication to make any valid points. Simply copying and pasting, verbatim, transcripts from court and judges in court is pointless and valueless. The goal is to overturn all of these backward and antiquated precedents, which are, themselves, based on untrue stereotypes of gay people.

Once again, you preach at me from a position of intellectual inferiority and ignorance. It is just plain silly. Tell me, why is gay marriage bad? So far, you have not even attempted to make a case that is real or credible.

Fitz said about me:

"Here is a fine example of the lack of reason, intellect, honesty, and liberalism of so many proponents of same-sex “marriage”."

Here for all to see is someone engaged in self delusion."

I am more reasonable than you are . I have greater intellectual capcity, BY FAR, than you. I am more honest than you. I am on the side of goodness, and you are on the side of wickedness.

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at by accusing me of "liberalism." If you are implying that God is a Republican, well, ditto what I said above, about intellectual capacity. Neither am I am engaged in self-delusion.

You have already accused me of being a Communist, simply because I am in favor of same-sex marriage. Communism and gay marriage do not relate in the least. I can assure you that I am not a Communist, and really know next to nothing about Communism, except that under Communism, the government denies human rights to its citizens, which is your position, with regards to gay people.

You, on the other hand, are living in unconscious ignorance. Yes, I said "IGNORANCE." Quote all you want from Dutch scholars and others, but that does not help you with your ignorance.

Here are some undeniable facts for you: there is nothing wrong with being gay; it is not a sin or an abomination; it is not a defect.

Gay people are here, living on the earth now. Some of them a very nice people. Some of them are very friendly people. Some of them are quite funny and witty. If you avoid them, shun them, and ostracize them, that is YOUR loss. Of course you will not understand this at all. This is part of your profound ignorance.

Gay people are here already, ready or not, whether you know any or not. They are all ready and willing to tell you about being gsy so you don't need to make things up about them, assume false stereotypes as truth, nor depend on hearsay as fact. If you are willfully ignoranct when the truth is easily and freely accessible, then that says something VERY BAD about your chracter.

Gay people are here already, living on the earth. They are small in number, and are not a threat to anyone. A small fraction of them are already paired up in couples. These are the people who would get married if it gay marriage were legal. The number of gay people would not change, and the number of gay couples would not change. In fact, you would not and could not notice any difference at all, in your life. You would be just as free as ever to shun and ostracize gay people, as ever.

If you your religion teaches that being gay is a sin and is bad, then you religion is leading you down the wrong path. You must have the courage to face this and question the false doctrines that your religion has passed along to as truth. It takes courage.

CCNL - thanks for the photo of the happy couple. I thought the two were equally cute - although both gals have the well defined chins that most men would kill for. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you......

Have they discovered a 'chin' gene yet? Better yet, for those chinless boy wonders that can afford it - 10 grand worth of plastic surgery would be quicker and cheaper.

Danielinthelionsden (writes)

“No one is talking about redefining marriage. I think that gay people want marriage to remain EXACTLY as it always has, only they want to get married too.”

“Stop obsessing on "redefining" marriage. No one is talking about that, except you.”

Here is a fine example of the lack of reason, intellect, honesty, and liberalism of so many proponents of same-sex “marriage”.

Here for all to see is someone engaged in self delusion around something that is transparently and indeed: DEFINITIONALLY and unavoidable, concrete, irrefutable FACT.

Allow me to demonstrate.

The New York Court points to it directly
Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Multiple State Supreme Courts from Washington State, Maryland, New York have (within the last 5 years) upheld the clear weight of precedent and the law. This is in addition to 30 State constitutional amendments.

This right to marriage –is a right to marriage quo “marriage”.

The (very) few State Supreme courts that have said otherwise have done so against the clear weight of precedent concerning the very "right" they purport to uphold. As those dissents have clearly stated.

As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -

“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1

"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2

"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3

Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4

1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)

CCNL

Aren't you a pretty confused guy to be calling other people defective and yucky?

When Ellen DeGeneres said that her "married partner" would be cooking and cleaning for her, perhaps she was being humorous; you know humor, don't you? Perhaps she was merely playing off of the stereotypes that people like you persist in holding? She was really mocking people like you; don't you get jokes? Because, after all, cooking and cleaning is not what defines a man or a woman, and it is not what defines sexual orientation; to mention it such a general and flippant way could only be considered a joke by any normal person; only defective people wouldn't get the joke.

Dan in the Den,

Gay sexual activity is yucky not the inner person. No one is going to go blind or going to Hell for such activity be it mutual or self-masturbation. Happy "googling"!!!

CCNL

They're both girls, you fool.

A gay man is a man, you fool.

And a gay woman is a woman, you fool.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Yes, indeed, you can find all kinds of false stereotypes regarding gay people on the internet, just like you can at Rick Warren's church, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and in the Republican Party.

So what? Does any of this prove anything?

No it does not.

You think gay people are yucky? Does that prove anything? Does thant mean anything? It is just more of your foolish nonsense.

Gay people are not yucky. Being gay is not a sin. Being gay is not an abomination. Gay people are not defective.

You can keep on repeating your lies and spreading your lies as truth, but that does not make them true.

Citing a lie on the internet is no justification for any of your anti-gay arguments.

For the "Google Challenged" Dan in the Den:

"The much-publicised marriage three weeks ago of the Australian beauty Portia de Rossi and the male-like US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and the widening recognition of same-sex marriage in the western world raise the possibility that women will have a choice."

"DeGeneres tells People.com, "What can I say? I'm the luckiest girl in the world. She's officially off the market. No one else gets her. And now she'll cook and clean for me."

And from http://www.usmagazine.com/ellen-degeneres-and-portia-de-rossi-to-wed-saturday+?page=6- Who is the Guy and Who is the Gal in the photo???

CNNL wrote:

"The "male" characteristics of DeGeneres, O'Donnell and King have been noted many times in open forums and in the media. "Google it" and learn!!!"

Well now, Mr. CCNL, we are noting that you are telling lies on this forum. You don't to need to google it; just go back and read this sentence over again, to hear me say it, you are lying.

Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell are obviously female. What men do they remind you of? John Wayne? George Bush? Tom Selleck? What is your point? that they are defective?

There are lots and lots of women who are not "girly girls;" in fact, most are not. Have you been to Iowa, in the Winter? I can assure that the average woman there do not wear stilettos and chiffon cocktail dresses. But that does not mean they are gay; it just means they are practical.

You're living in a weird fantasy world.

You need to grow up, and stop being such a little boy. Being gay is not defective; being gay is not bad; it is not a sin; it is not an abomination; it is not yucky.

Being gay is not big deal, except for homophobic people who keep kicking "their can" down the road, to make trouble and stand in the way of others.

Dan in the Den,

The "male" characteristics of DeGeneres, O'Donnell and King have been noted many times in open forums and in the media. "Google it" and learn!!!

CCNL

Being gay is not a sin; it is not a defect; it is not an abomination; it is not yucky. Those are all lies. You can repeat your lies 10 times or a thousand times, but that will not make these lies true. Repetitivness is not a criteria for truth.

Ellen Degeneres is not a girly girl, but I would hardly call her masculine. Rosey Odonnel often has a harsh tongue and is overweight; what about that makes her seem male to you? It is all in your head; but even if a man has feminine mannerisms, and a woman has male mannerisms, SO WHAT? What's it to you? What is wrong with that? Why do you judge them? It is their busniness, and not yours, isn't it?

By what authority to you judge them? By what criteria do you judge them? And what does your judgement mean? Do you report to some goup that seeks or needs your judgemnts? Or do you get on the phone with your old lady boyfriends, to gossip? Just what is all this to you?

What is wrong with gay marriage? How does that hurt you? How does it hurt straight people or straight marriage? How does it hurt God or Jesus? How does it hurt organized religion? Gay people are few in number; they already exist; they are already paired up in marriage-like relationships; why would making it legal cause so many problems for so many? How will it even be noticilbe at all?

There is nothing wrong with being gay; it is not a defect of any kind; in fact gay people are perfectly fine, and as free as defects as straight people. Being gay is no big deal, except to all of the anti-gay people, who insist on keeping their grudges going, year in and year out, against a tiny, tiny minority which it totally and completely harmless.

Dan in the Den,

Dr. Ruth you "ain't"!!

Persiflage,

You don't see "maleness" in DeGeneres and O'Donnell? Might want to "google" a bit to improve your "vision". (search phrase to start, -DeGeneres male characteristics)

CCNL said:

"Gay sexual activity is simply mutual masturbation driven by a defect(s) in the DNA and/or hormonal level of the participants. Nothing more, nothing less."

These are false statements which amount to slanders and lies against gay people. You can repeat your false statements as many times as you want, but that will not make them true; false they are, and false they shall remain.

For one thing, you keep using "gay sexual activity" as a synonym for being gay. Any man woman or child in American can have a same sex experience, yet not be gay. What about that don't you understand? You are very, very ignorant on these matters.

I think you should keep quiet on things that you do not understand, have no interest in learning about, and little capacity for comprehending. Just be quiet, butt-out, and stop embarrassing yourself.

So what if your visualiztions of "gay sexual activity" is "yucky?" We should care about your sullied sensibilities towards other people's private sex lives, because? ... why?

Tell us.

CCNL - 2+2 = 4 .....only because we agree that it does. As you know, science gathers facts and renders provisional explanations for material phenomena through the use of man-made tools, theorems, and various cognitive strategies (without rendering moral judgements) - math is the prime example of the language of science.

Never would we see the concepts of 'truth and reality' associated with science in the form of a construct representing the 'absolute', other than as pure hyperbole. Pythagorus excepted, of course - whose mystical 'numerology' became a foundation for modern science.

As to your other observations, it's far less likely that you will find anything like a universal consensus - particularly as regards the highly subjective and transparently pejorative parts of your synopsis.

That amounts to social commentary, and we're back where we started - with opinions.

PS. I don't particularly see 'maleness' in either DeGeneres or Rosie O'Donnell. I think Billie Jean King probably cultivated an 'in your face' butch look just to irritate and titillate homophobes - but we couldn't say the same thing for Martina Navratilova, for example. Just my opinion, of course.....

Well let us see!! Two plus Two is still Four i.e. an example of Truth and Reality just as in the following:

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies show it outwardly as evidenced by the poster boy of the AIDs crises, Rock Hudson.

Well let us see!! Two plus Two is still Four i.e. an example of Truth and Reality just as in the following:

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies show it outwardly as evidenced by the poster boy of the AIDs crises, Rock Hudson.

'Truth and Reality' are as relative as concepts can be - and have been employed in nefarious ways for millenia.

Both terms are merely nominal, generic in nature, and can be construed in countless ways, depending on the user's intentions and state of mind.....therein lies the rub.

So what it all comes down to are value-laden opinions and whatever expertise one can muster to support those opinions. Particularly in the realm of religion, politics, and sex, and that's the truth...

As the Bard says, 'a rose is a rose by any other name....' - and so go opinions passing for 'truth and reality'.

Truth and Reality are not elements of Obsession.

CCNL - One should beware of any leitmotif that points up a pre-occupation with the sexual activity of other people.....unless functioning in a therapeutic capacity, as a spiritual counselor, or as a director of films with an 'adult' content.

Otherwise, such predilictions could indicate an underlying and unhealthy tendency toward fetishim and allied compulsive behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idee_fixe

Daniel in the Den,

Gay sexual activity is simply mutual masturbation driven by a defect(s) in the DNA and/or hormonal level of the participants. Nothing more, nothing less.

So if gay people are an "abomination," then what is an abomination? Is an abomination a sin? Or is it a mental illness? Or is it just trivial yuckiness, like eating with your mouth open?

Is there anything else in life and on the earth that could be described as an "abomination?" I have never heard this word "abomination" ever used in any sense, except to describe gay people. So, does "abomination" merely mean the quality of being gay, or does it mean the physical logistics of gay sex? Is sex, in general, an "abomination?"

Why is sex, in general, so bad? Why are religious people so hung up on sex? Why is sex their stumbling point?

If religious people are frigid and sexually cold, can they ever know love? Can they empathize with others that do? Could they ever empathize with gay people who may be in love?
Do they love their own children with the same depth of feeling that "unfrigid" people do?

I do not think so. From the example that many relgiious people set, despite their preaching about love, many of them seem emotionally flat, blank, or damaged with regards to real human contact and love. Alot of this traces to sexual repression.

These are all my speculations on the interior motivations of homophobic people, since they will not or cannot say themselves, what is the cause of their ill-will and bad feelings against gay people.

Fitz

You still have not said what it is about gay people that rubs you the wrong way; I mean, what is your grudge?

And also, after all the posting, and posting, and posting that you have done on this, you still have not said why you object to gay marriage. You think about gay people too much. You need to relax and enjoy YOUR OWN life, and stop trying to mess up other people's.

So what is the problem? When you and your wife go to bed at night, the thought of gay marriage just creeps you out, or what? What is it exactly? And please, don't cite Dutch scholars. I won't read what they say, since I am asking YOU for YOUR opinion.

Why are you so focussed and obsessed on the the "redefinition" of the word "marriage?"

No one is talking about redefining marriage. I think that gay people want marriage to remain EXACTLY as it always has, only they want to get married too. You are the one who is seeking to pass all manner of amendments and laws for what? To keep things the same, or to change things?

Stop obsessing on "redefining" marriage. No one is talking about that, except you. Relax. Gay marriage is not going to hurt you, but it will help gay people. Why do you want to obstruct gay people? What about them don't you like? You still have never said. In reality, there is really nothing, intrinsically, about them that is bad; it is only what anti-gay people project onto them, from their own interior mental dramas that may make them seem bad. What are you projecting on gay people? Something about religion, I am sure.

If so, you seriously, need to rethink your religion.

I think your problem is rooted in ignorance. It is easy to see that you know almost nothing about gay people. You should try to find out more about them, instead of just assuming, and buying into untrue stereotypes. Otherwise, you are not qualified to speak on these things, which you know nothing of.

As I said before, and I mean it seriously, religisous people, usually men, who have an obssesive grudge against gay people, often turn out to have some kind of confusion in their own sexual orientation. I am not saying to be mean; it is a clearly observable fact. Men whose sexual thoughts pre-occupy them with women do not generally have alot of left over energy to vent at gay men. That is just plain how it is.

If all you have in reply to these questions is bitter sarcasm, then I would say that this just proves even more that the problem is inside of you, and not in gay people.

As I have stated before, there is nothing wrong with being gay; gay people are good and fine; being gay is not a sin.

Fitz

You are pitiful; I guess you just don't get it.

Slavery was abolished, AFTER a great war in which 600,000 Americans were killed. There were only the votes in Congress and in the states to amend the Constitution because the vanguished Southern states were not permitted to rejoin the Union, until AFTER the changes were made. Was that fair? Did that follow proper channels? If we had followed proper channels according to you, there would never have been a war, and the slavery would never have been abolished.

The proper channels are the channels that give freedom to all people. Barriers to that freedom must be knocked down. The stronger people like you make the barriers, the more force will have to be applied to knock them down. The more people like you resist, the greater the eventual social dislocation.

What you are basically saying is that you would be willing to fight a desctrutive war to keep gay people in their place. I do not think that there are enough people as radical as you are to cause this eventuality, but if so, then you may get what you wish for.

What you are basically doing is pushing the envelope of the "culture war" to a real war, all in the name of Jesus Christ, whose name you use in your causes, in vain.

Dear Professor Thistlethwaite

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2009!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Somewhat surprising is that no one has brought into the discussion the number of gays in the USA.

For a fair analysis, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results

From this analysis, it would appear gays alone do not have near the voting power to pass Federal gay "marriage" laws. Heterosexuals however might join forces if said gay unions were defined as unions of persons having certian sexual defects.

DanielintheLionsDen (wrote)
“The point was to show that even Constitutional barriers to justice can be overcome.”

Constitutional barriers to prohibition & slavery were overcome with supermajorities of the House & Senate and ¾ of the State’s ratifying those (4 separate) Amendments…

This is what is required to overcome the fundamental constitutional right to marriage as being between 1 man & 1 woman as the established Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) make clear.

You guys start playing by the rules and advocating for “change” through the proper channels (As the abolitionists, suffragettes, and prohibitionists did) & we would have plenty of time to build on our broad majorities of the American people and convince even more Americans that the institution of marriage should not be re-defined in the name of gay “inclusion”.

That is why you and your cause wont go (and have not gone) the democratic route to victory… Instead you will follow the path of Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade, & Lockner…. Judicial usurpation of Democracy.

Fitz

My comments were on PROHIBITION and SLAVERY. And the point was not to compare being gay to prohibition or to slavery. The point was to show that even Constitutional barriers to justice can be overcome.

So, you are stupid, for not getting my simple point aren't you? And you are stupid for supposing that your citation of legal barriers can stop gay marriage.

And you are a little bitter. Why? Being a Christian does not seem to be doing you much good.

And I would like to repeat once again:

BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN; GAY PEOPLE ARE GOOD.

DanielintheLionsDen :

I think I get it now...

Gay "marriage" = Slavery

END OF DISCUSSION...

(I did not know the conversation was going to be so sophisticated....I came unprepared.)

Fitz

I can tell by the rudeness of your tone that you are a little bitter. I don't thinkg being a Christian is doing you much good.

Fitz

All meaningless and silly drivel.

I am not a Communist; I am not a leftist; I am not a gay activist, nor an activist of any kind.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong, on every count, on me and what I am. Surely your judgement is not very good.

I am just a person with opinions. I have a family and am part of a family. I know all about family life from the experiences of my own family. I know alot more about family life from my own personal experiences than I could ever get reading legal texts that describe family life.

You are hung up on you legalistic hair-splitting. But that is all irrelevant. Gay marriage is coming. The Constitution was amended in 1920 to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages in the Untited States. But is alcohold banned today? No it is not. It is legal.

Before the Civil War, the Supreme recongized that slavery was Constitutional. The Abolitionists opposed slavery, even if it meant abolishing the Constiution and replacing it with a new government. In the end, they were right, although we were able to end slavery with a war, instead of a new Constitution.

My point is, that your appeal to legal justification against gay marriage is not relevant to the righteousness of gay marriage. If you make the barrier more and more sturdy, then that just means a greater force must be applied to knock it down. That is how slavery was settled, and that is how this will be settled.

I repeat again, that being gay is not a sin. Therefore, there is no need to hate the sinner or the sin. Gay people are good, not bad. Being gay is not big deal. It is only a big deal when anti-gay people make it a big deal, and exagerate its importance.

I do not say these things to convince you of anything. Your heart and your mind are closed up tight and locked against common sense and reason. I say these things to counter in print your absurd arguments, so that others who may not be so hard in their hearts as you may see in writing these words which are the truth: "BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN; GAY PEOPLE ARE GOOD."

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN

Yes Dan; you need to keep the conversation of my (perceived) hatred of homosexuals. Yes you know little of the scholarship on family formation and the importance of standards & the law when it comes to civil society and a healthy marriage culture. (your apparently proud of this)

Yes I understand you need to keep the conversation as narrow as possible in order to attempt to prevail & “legalisms” (i.e –the law & our constitution) as well as scholarship must be just a distraction.

As you say…

“But, in a struggle for freedom, there are no rules, and there is no such thing as good manners.”

You may want to read about something called the Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic & Leninist rhetorical strategy for achieving “revolutionary change”…

In this way you can go from being a “useful idiot” to a true apparatchik.

Fitz and Jrrlawless

My story is simple because it is the truth: gay people are good; being gay is no big deal.

Your story is a tangled woven web, too complicted to keep straight.

(But keep trying).

Fitz

I do not know what all your citations of other sources and names was all about. Just more of your nonsense, I guess. Can't you think for yourself?

I think that people, especially men, who obsess over gay people often turn out to be gay themselves. You dismissed it sarcastically. That does not mean it might not be true.

Otherwise, what is it about gay people that you do not like? No need to cite a list of Dutch scholars, or any number of State Supreme Courst decisions to answer my question.

Just say, simply, why what is your gripe with gay people? And why are you better than they are?

I can tell you right off, you are not better than the gay people I have met. You might think you are a "privilieged character" in the eyes of God, but you are not.

For you, this is just the enjoyment of wallowing around in political mud, and not about religion or God at all. The persecution and destruciton of a whole group of people is just a legalistic game, a parlour conversation, in which everyone is expected to have "Victorian" manners, and speak in civil tones.

But, in a struggle for freedom, there are no rules, and there is no such thing as good manners. So stop complaining everytime one of your bombs is tossed back at you.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN (WRITES)

“You are most probably gay yourself, why all this EXTREME fascination and attentnion to gay issues, which really are almost nothing at all? You are all wrapped in your own inner drama, and letting it spill out onto others.”

Ahhh…of coarse I am… I am just another in a long line of “latent homosexuals” that include those Scandinavian Academics, Rev Faultroy, President Elect Obama, Rev Warren, Majorites of the Supreme Courts in New York, Washington, Maryland and so forth….. the entire family scholars movement – including luminaries like Maggie Gallagher…Linda Wait…. Kay S. Hymowitz… Robert P. George…. David Blankenhorn & countless others…

Along with these people….
57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63–37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin, & 52% of Floridians, 57% of Arizonians.

You are correct sir…I am a proud member of the (very popular) “latent homosexuals” community who will remain “obsessed” with the institution of marriage until my last days on this earth….

JRRLAWLESS (WRITES)
“Mr. Fitz how does your comments concerning your basic goodness change the FACT we shall stand before God and be judged for our actions? The Bible tells us we are not basically good but rather basically evil.”

My understanding of scripture tells us we ARE basically good but prone to sin…That is - fallen, broken, yet still (essentially) good.

jrrlawless (writes)
"Our sinful nature and actions have separated us from a Holy and Just God."

True…

jrrlawless (writes)
“Only by accepting the gift He has offered us through the vicarious death of His son upon a rugged cross can we hope to escape God's wrath. God loves us all but hates the sin we commit. He loves you Fitz and offers his reconciliation if you will but repent of your sins. The Bible tells us God rejoices when a sinner repents. In your case I think the rejoicing would be heard through out Heaven if you wouold but repent. He stands at the door of your heart knocking. Please, open the door and let him in.”

I have accepted said gift and am resolutely (if imperfectly) preparing for the Kingdom. I repent of my sins regularly and receive His Grace. I have been forgiven once 2000 and nine years ago and every Sunday.

jrrlawless (writes)
“He loves you Fitz.”

I know – It is my love for Him that is imperfect.

Mr. Fitz how does your comments concerning your basic goodness change the FACT we shall stand before God and be judged for our actions? The Bible tells us we are not basically good but rather basically evil. Our sinful nature and actions have separated us from a Holy and Just God. Only by accepting the gift He has offered us through the vicarious death of His son upon a rugged cross can we hope to escape God's wrath.

God loves us all but hates the sin we commit. He loves you Fitz and offers his reconciliation if you will but repent of your sins. The Bible tells us God rejoices when a sinner repents. In your case I think the rejoicing would be heard through out Heaven if you wouold but repent. He stands at the door of your heart knocking. Please, open the door and let him in.

He loves you Fitz.

Fitz

You do not like it when someone corrects your lies with the truth.

But that is what I will keep on doing, as long as you keep posting lies about gay people.

My story is simple because it is the truth: gay people are good; being gay is no big deal.

Your story is a tangled woven web, too complicted to keep straight.

Fitz

I find your copying and pasting and references to be legalistic hair splitting a la Bill Clinton too boring to read.

When the Berlin Wall came down, it was said that the unification of Germany would be a good 5 to 10 years in the making, due to all of the legal adjustments that would have to made between the two systems which were TOTALLY incompatible.

But the political unification "happened" immedidately because there was a grass-roots demand for it among the people, on both sides. Grass roots social movements do not make way for legal niceties and hair splitting; it is the legal system which bends and mutates to accomodate the state of affairs in society, and not the other way around. The rules written down in a book, do not forever dictate how things should be, nor will be. For it is human beings who wrote those rules in the first place.

When a legal system has become fossilized, and oscified, and calcified, then there is not much give in it, and it shatters, not into a few pieces, but into smitherenes, such as in Revolutionary France, or Romanov Russia, or Hussein/Bush Iraq.

I do not wish for that to happen in our country. I wish for the system to bow to the social demands of the time, and to accomodate to the society over which it operates.

And as for getting over myself, what does that mean? You are the one who persists in posting your ugly, mean-spirited anti-gay dreck, yet you cannot stand it when someone disagrees with you.

You are most probably gay yourself, else, why all this EXTREME fascination and attentnion to gay issues, which really are almost nothing at all? You are all wrapped in your own inner drama, and letting it spill out onto others.

DanielintheLionsDen (writes)

Q. "I would really like to know what makes you tick."

A. Read below...

P.S. Get over yourself, and stop putting words in my mouth. Any person can read my post's and see what I have & have not claimed.

Fitz

Gay people are not a threat to the common good. Gay people, are, themselves, good.

If you disagree, then say what it is about gay people that you don't like, and why they are not good.

I would really like to know what makes you tick.

Fitz

If gay people are "an abomination," then tell us all please, what that means. What is an "abomination?" I know, for one thing, that it is an archaic word that almost no one would ever use, except to describe gay people. So gay people are so bad, that there is a single word to describe how bad they are. Doesn't it mean "yucky?" Isn't that what you don't like about gay people?

You have all kinds of hair-splitting arguments against gay people. You love to copy and paste citations which you think people will respect.

But you are mostly a silly, fearful person, hyper-aware of the "gay presence" all around you, which in reality, is almost invisible, and hyper-aware of gay bullying, when it is the gays who are the ones who get bullied.

What is it about gay people that you don't like? Why are you so focused on them, and so intent on them? What are you worried about? Being gay in no big deal. It is a real shame that people like you must constantly be about in the world, trying to make their difficult lives EVEN harder.

That is really something to be proud of, isn't it?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN (WRITES)
“You are merely scapegoating gay people for the decline of marriage and birth-rates in some countries.”

Why don’t you read the article instead of taking offense…No one is “scapegoating” anyone.

We believe same-sex “marriage” to be part & parcel - both cause & effect of a disintergrating marriage culture..

Re-read the Dutch scholars again…and read this…..

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Try thinking like your advesaries (for a minute) We are not thinking of the small group of homosexuals....we are thinking of the social institution of marriage.

We are thinking of the COMMON good...

Dont be so self-centered and provincial..think of the common good.

Fitz

Instead of making gay people your scapegoat for every bad thing that you can think of, why don't you tell us what you don't like about gay people.

Just say it all. If you cannot, or will not, then shut up!

Fitz

You are merely scapegoating gay people for the decline of marriage and birth-rates in some countries.

This is all bogus, and the product of a mean and vindictive spiriit.

And why keep dragging children into this? The number of gay couples who are ever going to have children is tiny and miniscule compared to straight couples. And of these gay couples with children, most of them will not be adopting a child, but will be raising one of their own natural children.

So just shut about all this, unless you have something that is truthful and honest to add.

For centures and centuries, gay people were mute and suffered insult and abuse from people like you; now they have found a voice; you do not like that voice; fine; but you cannot silence it.

8/7/04 THE HAGUE -- an open letter to this newspaper, five academics raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.

(discussing the dramatic decline in marriage rates in the Netherlands)

…..“The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.”

”In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”

”Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order. “

Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam

Fitz4

There is no grass roots movement for polygamous marriage. I have never known anyone in a polygamous relationship, unless you count married men having secret affairs, I have known plenty of them.

You should stop lying about gay people, because that is primarily what you do on these threads. Most of all, you are hyper-aware of gay people as being some sort of threat, when in fact, gay people are few in number, mostly invisible, benign, and harmless. Only, now they have a voice and they are using it.

Just what is it about gay people that you don't like? If you would verbalize it graphically, and just "spill your guts" and get it out, then maybe you would see that all your fears about gay people taking over everything, and ruining everything are just mindless and silly.

Being gay is no big deal. If you want to find out for yourself, then ask some gay people about it. If you don't know any gay people, and don't know how to meet any gay people, then why would you have a problem with people who are, as far as your own experience is concerned, invisible?

When gay marriage is finally leagllized in all 50 states, there will probably be several hundred thousand married gay couples in America, perhaps as many as 500,000. That is few enough in our large country so that you could easily avoid them by the friends and associations that you keep, which I am sure are quite exclusive.

I am sure that you will not be able to tell any difference at all in your life, both in public, and in the privacy of your own marriage and bedroom.

"Same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, both gay and straight, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal. Like it or not, that is how it is."

Oh indeed - a grass roots movement that would be dead in the water if a minority of State Supreme Courts had not voted by narrow split decisions to foist this on there citizens illegally.

I'm afraid the FACT that my law school family law department was made up of three lesbian polymorists - reveals same-sex "marriage" to be anything put the moral equal of civil rights.

This is of -by, - & for the elites. It has more to do with contempt for marriage as archaic & patriarchal then it has to do with gay "inclusion"...

You are being used for nefarious purpose....

Jrrlawless

If you are a graduate of Liberty University, then the main lesson that you would have learned there is "INTOLERANCE." And you have learned your lesson well. (I would not brag about that if I were you; someday, you will understand and be regretful).

Gay people are not bad, they are not sinful; they are not perverted. When you vilify and demonize gay people in the name of Jesus Christ, then you are spreading false doctrines. You can listen to false doctrines all you want, and can repeat them over and over to yourself and to others, but that does not make a false doctrine true.

Gay people are normal. Gay people are good; they are as good as straight people. Gay people are few in number, and mostly hidden from view. Being gay is no big deal, except to anti-gay religious fanatics, who have exagerated everything about gay people, and who seem hyper-aware of the existence of gay people in the world. Denial of these facts does not change the facts that gay people are as good as straight people.

Perhaps, Jrrlawless, you think you are better than other people; you walk around with sure knowledge that gay people are "perverted." Perhaps the you should look in the mirror. Perhpas you should look up the word "snob."

Same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, both gay and straight, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal. Like it or not, that is how it is.

Gay people exist among us in the world, and contribute greatly to it. They are not just "nothing;" they are not "God's mistakes;" they are not going away; they are not going back into the closet.

Now they want ALL their rights; there is nothing complicated about it; it is happening, and it is going to happen.

Gay marriage is coming. The views of Liberty University graduates on this subject are irrelevant, because it is coming. All your explanations about what causes people to be gay, and how being gay in unnatural and will ruin society are pointless.

It is coming, and there is nothing that Conservartive Christians can do to stop it. They can spend all of their efforts for the rest of their lives campaigning against the rights of gay people, but it will be all a waste. Or they can do something more constructive.

Once again I must agree absolutism sates that either something is right or it is wrong. In this case once agin we have the written testimony of a seminary professor that is using her position to try and convince us in some way we are wrong. This laymen is not falling for it. I am a member of the Phi Beta Kappa International Honor society, an honors graduate from Lower Columjbia College, holder of a double major from Liberty Universty and will graduate with an MDIV, with 15 credit hours in original languages, with a GPA = 3.75. I think I am some what qualified to make my own logical, moral, biblical, and evangelical decision on what is right and wrong. Marriage from the time of Adam and Eve have always been bewtween a man and a woman. Just because you wish to become part of the in crowd and make such a clearly unsupported, amoral, liberal statement does not make it true. God, as a semianry professor you should know, is a multi faceted diety. He is not just love but is also judgmental. He has said all will stand before him to be judged, including you. Paul, the apostle has stated, reading the Greek not the English, that no practicing homosexual will enter the gates of Heaven. That is the personification of what is right. The personification of what is wrong is this, homosexuality is wrong. As James states one who places themselves in the position of a teacher will be judged even more harshly than the rest of us.

Civil unions? OK, call one group male and female joined in matrimony and two females or two males joined in mutual masterbation. Problem solved.

SBT (writes)
Rev. Lowery is a United Methodist and has joined the struggle in that denomination for equal rights for gay Methodists to be ordained. In 2000, Lowery gave an extraordinary speech where he called for full inclusion in the body of Christ for all Methodists, gay or straight, saying he preferred to err "on the side of inclusion."

Once again SBT is misrepresenting Lowery as a theological champion of gay marriage and some one who has dropped Christian objections to homosexual conduct. Lowery has done neither of these things and SBT attempt to co-opt him to the cause is dishonest and ill-liberal.

“Call[ing] for full inclusion in the body of Christ for all Methodists, gay or straight, saying he preferred to err "on the side of inclusion." “”

Is neither to condone homosexuality as no longer sinful nor to abandon the Christian institution of marriage. This is simply calling for evagilzation and Christian witness to all of humanity. Nothing in the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox Church’s is contrary to this understanding.

For SBT to try and make this average speech into some (false) call for dropping Christianity and excepting the whole or part of homosexual politics is (again) dishonest and ill-liberal.

Here is someone who Rev Lowery is close friends and allies with on this subject.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Rev. Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Mr. Elliott,

You are continually providing me with lesson plans for my Eng. 101 class, which focuses on argument.

First, this is a secular country. There is separation of church and state, and the taxpayers are funding this inaugural to-do. Not all of us are (a) Christian or of Christian descent or (b) bigoted and corrupt. Hence, neither clergy nor bigots belong at inaugurations.

"Civil unions" are to marriage what separate but equal was to eduction.

Either we all abandon marriage and have civil unions or none of us do.

Obama, Warren, and Lowery are Protestants. All four of us are evangelical-liberal Protestants, the position which seems the best fit for the current American mind-mood, which is for compromise and concilation.

On gay "marriage," Warren & Lowery are a good balance. L. sees it as a CIVIL right, W. sees it as a LANGUAGE right (the right of the word "marriage" to retain its historic heterosexual meaning). This semantic squabble is unnecessary: let's agree to the compromise of favoring civil "unions," as Warren does (and as Vermont was the first state to do).

The persisting attack on the word "marriage" has a dismal political prospect and is distracting from the people's urgent business in this time of many pains and puzzles.

ICHIEF:

You write:

"Come to think of it you were only too happy to use this platform and your office as the former president of the Chicago seminary and as an ordained minister to demonize Hillary Clinton by inappropriately using the biblical story of Esther."

Good grief. Is this true? And, if so, is there anyway to document this?

SBT (writes)
“Rev. Lowery is sort of an anti-Warren, actually. Warren threw his considerable church resources into ensuring the passage of Proposition 8, the California anti-gay ballot initiative that took away the civil right of gay people to marry.”
This is transparent question begging. Defending the institution of marriage is not “anti-gay” & to say something – “took away the civil right of gay people” is to presuppose the controversy at hand {that is} That “civil rights” – somehow demand that we redefine the institution of marriage to be genderless.

SBT (writes)
“Lowery, by contrast, has courageously supported gay marriage. In 2004, Rev. Lowery told ABC News he supported same sex marriage. "When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody."

No he has not – SBT is conflating what Lowerey is carefully parsing. He never said he was for “gay marriage” but rather made comments about the “law discriminating”. This is the same dance that many a left politician is doing. With good reason Lowery has not claimed that marriage can be made genderless. To do so is to repudiate his Church, Scripture, Reason & Tradition.

SBT is carefully parsing & co-opting Lowery as proponent of a cause he has not (to date) championed.

Hey all you vestigial right-wingers - this is the only bone that Obama is throwing you yokels.

Get past your disappointment and get with the new centrism....there's little danger that Obama, his policies, or his administration will ever be identified as 'socialist' or a left-leaning.

On the other hand, we're spared the idiocy of a McCain/Palin administration. A silver lining for one and all.....the glass is at least half full.

Short version: Lowery agrees with Thistlethwaite's left-wing views, and Warren doesn't. What a gripping article. No, really. Gripping.

BO even with RW saying a "Palin-type" freedom from voodoo prayer over him will still be the leader of the Immoral Majority gaining said presidency on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies and the 70+ million votes of their "mothers and fathers".

With respect to gay sexual unions, call it what it is, mutual masturbation. Physcically and biologically, it cannot be called "marriage sex".

Susan,

I'm glad to see that you understand Barack Obama's failure to grasp the fact that compromising the civil rights of the LGBT community by asking Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation is morally wrong.

You should have also pointed out the gaps in Rev. Lowery's knowledge of history. Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard recently quoted Lowery's uninformed opinion of gays: "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."

I suggest that Lowery review the persecution of gays by the Nazis during the holocaust.

By the way, Obama's passivity throughout the Democratic primary and the general election in response to the ugly sexism and misogyny endured by first Hillary Clinton and later Sarah Palin has also been immoral. Recently, Obama failed to speak out when his speechwriter Jon Favreau was photographed sexually molesting a cardboard cutout of the newly named secretary of state.

Come to think of it you were only too happy to use this platform and your office as the former president of the Chicago seminary and as an ordained minister to demonize Hillary Clinton by inappropriately using the biblical story of Esther.

Americans need to remind themselves occasionally that we set the example on human rights for the rest of the world. Our disrespect for the rights of women and gays gives other cultures permission to commit unspeakable crimes such as the recent stoning to death of a 13-year-old Somali girl after she had been brutally raped by three men.

Susan,

The following has been posted on the Obama transition website, and on several media blogs:

The choice of Pastor Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation is the first big mistake of the Obama transition. I have been an active supporter of Barack Obama and campaign volunteer. I have been impressed with all his cabinet appointments so far, and the remarkable job being done by his transition team. But this invocation choice is a painful slip-up. I understand the desire to expand the religious point of views that are represented at the inauguration, but Rev. Warren has a reputation for his exclusive and divisive positions. And the invocation is not unimportant. It will set a tone for the rest of the day's proceedings, and it is the wrong tone. As a Protestant pastor myself, I would have recommended John Bryson Chane, Dean of the National Cathedral (Episcopal) in Washington DC, or Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, former President of Chicago Theological Seminary at the University of Chicago and currently a religion columnist for the Washington Post. The President-Elect has said he will not be afraid to admit his mistakes and correct them. This should be the first one.