I had a hard time hearing President Obama's speech to the audience Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, DC this past weekend, because of the noise of so many right wing religious heads popping every time he said the word "gay" or "lesbian" and followed with words of praise and promise instead of curses and condemnation. The religious right has been busy condemning Obama for his words. Catholic Online bemoaned that Obama has made it clear that he "will not defend marriage" and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council , in that same article, warned his constituents that Obama's message was clear that "if you hold to traditional values, the ultimate goal is simple — to silence you." The Baptist Press quotes Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues, who complains that Obama dissed Christian conservatives:
"President Obama continues to portray all who disagree with him as those who 'hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes,'" Stith told Baptist Press. "The inference is that if an attitude is old it must be wrong. The constitution is an old document. The Bible is older still."
And, lest we forget, the Bible was used as the authority to do many things we now reject and legislate against like owning slaves and women and advocating for a separation of the races. I'm certain even Stith would not use the Bible to justify the practice of slavery as many of his Southern Baptist forebears so staunchly did, but this "older still" document has been usurped by the Constitution in this ancient matter. In short, the Bible was wrong on slavery, and biblical justifications against gays and lesbians are just as wrong, and will be proven wrong in time, as biblical justifications for slavery were. The religious right, however, are bolstering their arguments against marriage equality especially by pointing to a new poll showing most find homosexuality immoral – but since when do we base civil rights on morality? I find adultery and murder immoral, but adulterers and murderers, as long as they are heterosexual, still have the right to marry the man or woman of their choice. Civil rights do not turn on whether one finds another person's behavior moral or not.
While it's kind of fun, however, to see the religious right toil and spin over Obama's bold speech to gay and lesbian activists, I remain cynical. Just as the scariest words one can ever utter to me is the phrase, "I'm a Christian," it scares me even more when President Obama starts making promises to the gay and lesbian community. For example, he said that he has "called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act." That's cold comfort. He's also called on Congress to do the right thing on health care and we see how that's been working out so far.
I hold out little hope that this Congress will do anything like repeal DOMA. The president can call on them all he wants, that doesn't mean anything good will come of it. Just as I only believe people are Christian only when they act like it, I'll only believe that this president will act on gay and lesbian issues when I see some results. Otherwise, thanks for the lovely speech, Mr. President. When I step outside of my natural cynicism though, the importance of Obama's speech to the HRC audience is breathtaking. No other president has so openly promised this much to our community. No other president has taken this much time and care in expressing himself to us. As Adele Stan points out, he even made the dangerous assertion that gay rights are synonymous with the civil rights struggle of African Americans.
This is not a statement without some risk for Obama. It's a comparison often met with resentment in the African-American community — a comparison few have the moral authority to make. The nation's first African-American president is one of them.
Gays and lesbians should not simply take Obama at his word, though. In his speech, he was clear that he's not going to fulfill all these promises on his own – the gay and lesbian community still must convince him to act.
And that's why it's so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America.
Honestly, the cynic in me can't completely blame Obama if nothing gets done on equality for gays and lesbians. He's been clear that he needs to be pressured to do the right thing. Ultimately, it's up to the gay and lesbian community to make its case and move both the hearts and minds of leaders like Obama. Two days after the speech, a friend of mine sat in my office full of emotion saying that she had been profoundly moved by Obama's words. "It's clear," she said, "that in his heart he's not quite there yet on gay and lesbian issues. He knows that it's the right thing to do – that gays and lesbians must have equal rights in all areas – but while he knows it intellectually, it just hasn't gotten to his heart yet." She saw an intelligent, caring man who is honestly struggling with the issue of gay and lesbian equality and valiantly trying to put his intellect and his emotion together on the issue. My old cynical heart took comfort in her words and I hope her perception is right. I also hope that Obama will reconcile the two with enough time left in office to actually move the rights of gay and lesbian Americans forward – instead of again leaving us stranded with eloquent words and continued second-class citizenship.
Tags: civil rights, hrc, lgbt, obama, speech
I like the fact that obama has aligned himself with the sodomites. The first "gay" president. Perfect. obama is just as wicked as the perverts he enables and champions. His first term will be his last.
Welcome back whodat? I thought you had abandoned me.
I would take his comments as a compliment, actually. Obviously LGBT rights and their supporters are enough of a threat to the status quo that their enablers and supporters have to resort to venomous anonymous namecalling to feel justified.
Unfortunately, these folks have made a deal with Caesar (which is Obama now--funny enough) for some scraps of political power in exchange for supporting the diminishing Empire.
I agree, Ryan. If the LGBT community had no power folks like whodat? wouldn't feel the need to be bullies. They'd simply ignore us. The fact that he takes every opportunity to attack posts charitable to LGBT people and their rights shows his own fear and nothing else.
I am afraid. I'm afraid my children will have to grow up in a country that endorses immorality more than it already does. I'm afraid that my freedoms might be limited in order to accomodate the phony "rights" of sexual perverts. And I'm afraid that some parading sodomite might temp me to kill him; and I don't want to go to jail just for that.
You wrote: "And I'm afraid that some parading sodomite might temp me to kill him;"
And people wonder why the LGBT community wants hate crime laws enacted. Thanks for providing a great example of why.
If you, my dear whodat? were a Christian you'd know that Jesus tells you to love your enemies and do good to them. He never says kill them. In fact, that is forbidden.
Before you go after the mote you see in my eye, friend, there's a board in yours that needs some immediate attention - and therapy.
There are already laws against killing people. You want hate crimes laws in order to legitimize your wicked selves. Killing a queer is to you, a greater crime than killing a normal person, and you want the law to agree with you.
All killing is wrong (something you fail to grasp, obviously), but stricter punishments will hopefully mean a decrease of crimes against people simply because of their sexual orientation, skin color, or whatever the reason of the day to hate and kill people may be.
In a more perfect union, a hate crimes law would not be needed, but there was a time in parts of the country when murder was a crime unless it was a hate crime. Law enforcement considered it less of a crime or not something to be enforced depending on the races involved if hate was the justification. The national hate crime law was important in educating the general population, and also for educating law enforcement in some places.
That's rich. A pagan sodomite instructing someone on how to be a Christian.
Whether you consider me a Christian or not is beside the point, whodat? I'm telling you the words of Jesus in Scripture. Love your enemies and do good to them. The Bible forbids killing. The fact that you obviously reject Jesus' words and the Bible's instructions make your Christianity suspect and has nothing to do with whether I'm one or not. I'm holding you to the religion YOU claim. My status in that religion is a moot point. Your inability to defend your words with your beliefs says way more about you than it does about me.
No, your phony Christianity is very much a part of the point. You twist the Scriptures in order to try (unsuccessfully) to justify your sexual perversion.
Nowhere have I said I want to kill a homosexual; I only said I was afraid I might be tempted sometime to do that. You're reading things into my comments that aren't there.
No, I'm not whodat? I'm saying if you were a true Christian like you say you are you would never even be tempted to kill someone, no matter what. Even the idea of killing someone makes me sick to my stomach. I could never do that. It's morally repugnant to me. Yet you, a TRUE Christian admit to being tempted to kill someone. That, to me, negates your claim to Christianity. Again, it's got nothing to do with my beliefs, and believe me, I don't ever want to be considered a Christian by your standards. Your standards are far too low and your god is too small.
You have proven by your homosexuality that you don't take Christianity, or Christ, or the Bible seriously. You recoil at the idea of killing someone, but you relish the idea of queering someone. And you need not worry that anyone, outside of your ignorant circle, including God, will ever consider you to be a Christian. People who know what a Christian really is won't take a sexual pervert's claim of Christian faith seriously.
"You have proven by your homosexuality that you don't take Christianity, or Christ, or the Bible seriously."
Simply by disagreeing with how scriptures that are used against gays and lesbians are interpreted is in no way a rejection of Christianity, Christ, or the Bible. It is a rejection of those interpretations. Those who rejected Biblical arguments in favor of slavery had less of a leg to stand on than those who believe that biblical arguments used to condemn homosexuality are wrong. Yet, no one would now argue that the Bible orders us to keep slaves. So, in time, the Bible will no longer be used against gays and lesbians, and the authority of the scripture will continue on despite all the sky-is-falling wailing by those who hate gays and lesbians.
"You recoil at the idea of killing someone, but you relish the idea of queering someone."
I've never "queered" anyone, and no one "queered" me. Either you're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender or you aren't. No one "queers" another person - you are as God has made you.
"People who know what a Christian really is won't take a sexual pervert's claim of Christian faith seriously."
I don't take a hater's claim of Christian faith seriously either, so I guess we're even.
The Bible has always been used against faggots, and it always will be. You and your ilk refuse to understand it as God intended, but that does not mean that real believers will join you. And since God is the author, neither will He.
Keep talking, whodat? Your hole gets deeper and deeper.
Whether you consider me a Christian or not is beside the point, whodat? I'm telling you the words of Jesus in Scripture. Love your enemies and do good to them. The Bible forbids killing. The fact that you obviously reject Jesus' words and the Bible's instructions make your Christianity suspect and has nothing to do with whether I'm one or not. I'm holding you to the religion YOU claim. My status in that religion is a moot point. Your inability to defend your words with your beliefs says way more about you than it does about me.
LOL.Don't flirt with her, whodat. She is married.
--
Candace, sorry for saying that, but you guys have to mentally prepare yourself that nobody will give you anything without a fight. If black people had to fight for equality, no kind president gave it to them just because, you also might need to be more organized, march, grassroots work, get churches and decent christians to be on your side, etc. It will take effort
But lets hope it will happen ,soon. While I am straight , i am also Christian, thats why I strongly support your cause.
According to whodat? I'm still single no matter how many states or nations say otherwise. :)
It gets tiring trying to make our leaders do the right thing, but we can never rest. Thanks for your continuing support!
God said a marriage must have a husband and a wife. Husbands are men. Wives are women. There is no such thing as a woman husband, and there is no such thing as a marriage with two wives. You are NOT married, even if every government in the world says you are.
According to the Bible, God also allows a man to have more than one wife.
Don't confuse whodat? with facts from the Bible.
But God never allows a man to "marry" a man, or a woman to "marry" a woman. Homosex is strictly forbidden.
You're no Christian. You call good what God has called evil; no real Christian would do that.
Whodat is a Christian, I have no doubt about it. Just a very bad one. I'm sure that he probably wouldn't kill anyone himself. His Constantinian sensibilities indicate that he would rather lobby the state do it for him.
I guess he's also had some sort of unique revelation outside the biblical text wherein God told him that marriage was between a man and a woman. I can't remember which book that one is in. I mean, you might even come up with a better argument from the text that marriage is between a man and as many women as it takes to continue his line. I mean, if you take the Bible and God so seriously (as I like to think I do) then I'm sure you can recall the line you're citing. Unless God told you that, which I suppose is fair comment too, but not biblical.
Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleve to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Mark 10: 6-8
Alright. But where does that say homosexuals can't get married? That says that God made two sexes men and women (homosexuals are men and women, too, plus some people are born with both sets of sexual organs--just as God made them--so what are they?). It also says that when men and women get married, then they are considered one unit. Nowhere there is Jesus saying that "men and women can get married" or "on just saying that "when they do... it is like this." Wonderful passage--when we get married we are no longer individuals looking out for our own interests. Very nice.
And...? I mean, if you think the bible is so clear about gay marriage, that's a pretty poor verse to quote. It doesn't preclude gay and lesbian people from getting married--unless you read into it. Are you performing some act of biblical exegesis here, or are you just reporting "what it says"? There are plenty of passages in the bible that would be difficult to argue against--but this ain't one of them. If it "means what it says" then it certainly doesn't mean what you say it does.
Sorry, this should read:
Nowhere there is Jesus saying that "men and women can get married," he's just saying that "when they do... it is like this." Wonderful passage--when we get married we are no longer individuals looking out for our own interests. Very nice.
God decreed the death penalty for homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
Jesus endorsed the law of Moses in Matthew chapter five.
It is absurd that God would endorse homosexual marriage when He has said homosexuals should be executed. Marry this afternoon and be stoned this evening? That makes no sense at all.
First off, it would seem that proscription only includes males who sleep with males, so lesbians are off the hook.
Secondly, I'm sure you ascribe all of the Levitical laws to yourself, including abstaining from shrimp or mixed fiber clothing.
And, of course you advocate for the death of children who insult their parents.
And, of course, if you ever do act on that temptation and kill that queer for Christ, you won't spend too much time in jail, because you'll deserve the death penalty according to Leviticus 24:17:
"If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death."
Leviticus proscribes an eye for an eye, but Jesus, far from endorsing that law, rejected it in Matthew 5:38-39. In fact, he spends most of that chapter rejecting the old laws. Which Bible do you read?
What Jesus spends time doing is demanding more than the Mosaic law demands. Christ's demands are much harder to keep than is the Mosaic law. So, if you think you're getting off the hook on your perversion, you're wrong again!
Well, technically, Moses gave that particular decree in Leviticus. He is supposedly the author after all. So, no. You could probably say that Moses, writing what he claimed God said decreed that passage in Leviticus. If we think Moses was the author of the Bible, that is. Plus, was it about "homosexuals" or about "men laying with men"? There's no particular prohibition to people being of homosexual orientation in that part of the text. Doesn't say anything about women either, as far as I can tell.
And what about that part just before Leviticus in Exodus where it says, a lot more clearly, "you shall not kill" or "thou shalt not kill," if you're a stickler for the KJV? That one was written in stone, wasn't it? Whereas the other was written on parchment at most--if we take Moses as the author of the Bible and God as the author of the 10 commandments written in stone. I mean, you might be able make a convincing argument for the necessity of killing from the text. But if we're saying "the Bible says this," we can easily find a much stronger statement to the contrary in the Ten Commandments.
Not only that, but how does Jesus "endorse" the law of Moses? As a whole? Which parts particularly? As far as I can tell, Jesus claims that he is there to "fulfill" rather than endorse. Now, I may be mistaken, but that word sounds more like "bring to its logical conclusion" rather than "endorse."
Jesus doesn't endorse any kind of marriage, either in the passage you cited. So where is this textual evidence you mentioned?
Once again, are you interpreting, performing exegesis, or are you merely stating it at face value? If you believe that the Bible speaks for itself and you're going to read the thing on face value, please do a better job of it. The Bible deserves nothing less than honesty.
good points, Ryan. Whodat?, you are way above you head in this, bud.Dont make arguments you can't substantiate.
In the same Lev. there is an order to kill those caught in adultery,so you wanna make that a law, too? And considering all married to divorced people are automatically called adulterers in NT, massive killing might become a booming business, nice way to help the economy.
Be careful with reading the Bible literally and dont make me mad ;) I can easy find a line in the Law that makes you a candidate for extermination.I was born and raised in Judaism,so i know the OT better then you ever will.
Yes, God commands that adulterers receive the death penalty, just like God commands for homosexuals! But, in your perverted mind, since God demands the death penalty for adulterers and sodomites, of course that means that adultery and homosexuality are moral and approved by God!!! Of course, how self serving!
That's right; the Bible deserves nothing less than honesty. But you, and the other self-righteous perverts here, are incapable of honesty. It is a huge waste of time to try to argue the Bible with people who are either unable to understand it, or simply refuse to accept the obvious.
"It is a huge waste of time to try to argue the Bible with people who are either unable to understand it, or simply refuse to accept the obvious."
Finally, something we agree on.
I'm just an ignorant Brit - ignorant of the American governmental system that is - so I'm not quite sure what the President can and can't do but from what I've read in these pages and elsewhere Mr Obama seems to be saying a great deal without doing very much.
If he doesn't get more active then I fear whodat?'s prediction may well be right and he will lose his friends very quickly.
As for what the right is saying - take a look at Ken Ham's blog on the Answers in Genesis site.
I imagine this is pretty typical.
I don't know if I'll see true equality in my life time, but as I have 50+ years to go, let's see how close we can get.
*quote* "I only believe people are Christian only when they act like it, I'll only believe that this president will act on gay and lesbian issues when I see some results." *unquote*
The above is something I have said for a very long time. Christianity is the religion based on emulation of a man, Jesus, called the Christ. And I see very few of his followers who try to emulate him in any way (about 3 in my entire life, and I was raised as one)... three out of the thousands I have met and worshiped with over the years. Is it any wonder reasonable people are leaving the church?!
I pray the Creator teaches us all a little tolerance, myself included. As I find I can't tolerate rudeness, hatred and ugly behaviour in the name of God...
Keep up the good work Candace... there are some of us working our tails off with you :)
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.