Rick Warren Condemns Ugandan Antigay Bill

"This law is unjust, extreme, and unchristian towards homosexuals," he says, which is a forceful statement, to be sure.

Sullivan is grateful to Warren for using "Christian arguments in defense of the dignity of homosexual persons," and notes that the Pope has yet to speak out against the bill, even though 40 percent of Ugandans are Catholic, the largest church in that country.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out applauds, saying Warren showed "true moral courage and stood for what is right and just."

What I say:  Well, I'm glad to hear Brother Warren testify, I sure am.  And given his celebrity status and longtime involvement with Ugandan religious and political leaders, his words will probably carry a lot of weight over there, to the ultimate relief of our gay brothers and sisters - although it's important to remember that even before this bill was proposed, gay sex was punishable by life imprisonment, and that law has not changed.

Yet having been around and dealt with these Southern Baptist types all my life, I can see a ways beyond the surface to a certain level of phoniness they all have, even if unawares.  And when I heard the opening text of this video, there was a very strong smell of CYA in the room.  Read the words (emphasis mine):

But because I didn’t rush to make a public statement, some erroneously concluded that I supported this terrible bill, and some even claimed I was a sponsor of the bill. You in Uganda know that is untrue. I am releasing this video to you and your congregations to correct these untruths and to urge you to make a positive difference at this critical point in your nation.

So in his own words, what is the real cause and effect at work here?  If Warren hadn't been publicly tarred with the origins of this bill, would he ever have spoken out against it?  For the sake of gay Ugandans, I'm glad he did; but does any of this make him our friend? 

You be the judge.

Map of world homosexuality laws from Wikipedia.  Red and brown indicate life in prison or the death penalty for homosex; orange and yellow indicate lesser penalties.

Bullshit Alert: Sullivan Skewers Warren

On the anti-gay bill under consideration by Uganda's parliament:

One of Rick Warren's (and president George W. Bush's) longtime allies in Uganda, Martin Ssempe, is the author of a classic piece of minority-baiting legislation. Its details belong in the history of genocidal hatred . . . .  This is an act of terror and murder against an already beleaguered minority, and Warren is an accessory to it. As a powerful figure in distributing AIDS funding in Uganda, he cannot bring himself to oppose a law that would condemn someone in a gay relationship to death, and imprison him or her for touching another human being, and inciting a wave of informing on family members and friends and acquaintances in order to terrify a sexual minority. This alleged man of God cannot speak out on this - except to protect his own p.r. His schtick of actually being the nice evangelical - a schtick that got him to Obama's inauguration - is a lie. If he cannot condemn this fascist act of violence against a tiny minority of vulnerable human beings, then his position in this struggle is clear enough. . . .

On Warren's statement, "I never take sides":

He lies. He has taken sides, whenever possible, to stigmatize, demonize and now physically threaten the lives of gay people in his own country and abroad. And his silence on this issue means the deaths of others. Warren needs to come out and condemn this law as evil, which it is. And to stop hiding his own enmeshment with the most virulent forms of fundamentalist hatred under the veil of media-savvy benevolence.

What Happened to Hope and Change?

Mike Signorille reports on a couple of disturbing topics that really make me wonder what the hell goes on in the White House.  First:

Rick Warren, who in the past had ties to the Uganda pastor who helped spearhead legislation that would execute HIV-positive gay men if enacted, will not speak out about the against the legislation, saying that "it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."

On Meet the Press he said, "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." As Newsweek's Lisa Miller points out, this is a guy who called abortion a "holocaust" and who certainly does what he can to stop it in this country and around the world. Surely, he believes, as a self-proclaimed moral leader, that one must speak up against injustice. That is, if he sees state executions of gay men as a true injustice at all -- or at least one that is worth upsetting the apple carts he so neatly set up in Uganda.

And is it a coincidence that the Obama administration -- in which Warren has a fan at the very top -- has not spoken out loudly enough against what's happening in Uganda and that the man who doles out the AIDS dollars -- our taxpayer dollars -- on behalf of the president to Uganda, PEPFAR chief Eric Goosby, says pretty much what Warren says? According to Newsweek.com, Goosby says his job is "not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation."

That has got to be one of the most outrageous things I've heard so far from an Obama official: We're neutral on extermination.

And then this:

A report published on TIME's web site just before the holiday has an explosive bit of information: the chief judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a while back that a lesbian federal employee who reports to him be given federal marriage benefits, and it was actually going to happen until the White House, through the Office of Personnel Management -- headed by openly gay appointee, John Berry -- refused to comply and directed the health insurance carrier of the employee not to proceed. . . .

Now Judge Kozinkski has ordered that OPM stop interfering, demanding last week that the Obama administration comply with his order. . . .  If the Obama administration, which now has less than 30 days to respond, tries to fight this, not only will it undoubtedly cause another (and much bigger, in my opinion) firestorm within the LGBT community, but it's not clear that it actually can fight it, let alone win:

[Judge Kozinski's] order last week demanded that the executive branch reverse course, and gave the Administration 30 days to enroll Golinski's wife as her health-insurance beneficiary. He made clear that if it doesn't, he's ready to use the powers of his court to enforce his decree. University of California law professor Rory Little, a former Justice Department prosecutor and chief of appeals, called the order a "bombshell." "This is like exposing the tip of a huge iceberg that nobody knew even existed," he told TIME. "It's a fascinating question: Do the courts even have the power to do this? Where does it leave things procedurally? Where can the Administration appeal? I think there are five or six lawyers in the [Solicitor General's] office scurrying around right now trying to figure out what to do with this."

And of course, another bombshell here is that the Office of Personnel Management was ordered by the White House to refuse to give a lesbian federal employee her court-ordered rights. John Berry, as head of that office, was thus apparently forced as an openly gay man to deny another gay person, and the LGBT movement itself, of rights, even in the face or a court order.Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind? That, if true, is enormously troubling.

Now, on the one hand, fellas, that last part is a childish question.  When you go to work for an outfit, any outfit, whether you are straight, gay, or extraterrestrial, of course you have to follow the rules and policies of that organization if you expect to keep drawing a paycheck.  And if that gripes your chaps, you need to go find another job.  If you ain't the big boss, you don't get to do and say whatever you think is right:  you take the company's pay, you're a company man, whether it's Wal-Mart or the White House.

On the other hand, what just what the hell does all this say about Obama and his highest advisors, the policymakers? 

God bless Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, who just this weekend at the big Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting down in Trinidad, "raised concerns" about the draconian anti-gay laws directly with Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.  That's diplomatic talk for telling him he's full of shit.  In an extremely polite way, of course.

Your Head Trucker is also proud to report that Stephen Harper - Canada's Conservative Prime Minister, who tried unsuccessfully to roll back equal marriage in that country three years ago - also talked to Museveni and told the press he finds the anti-gay bill "deplorable."  I'm glad to hear you testify, Brother Harper.

The Advocate reports that the Ugandan embassies of both France and the United States have issued statements condemning the bill.

Ah, but what about our own President - you know, the guy who just won the Nobel Peace Prize?  The fellow the whole world is so in love with right now.  Has he said one fucking word about it?  Will he?

Or is he the kind of nicey-nice, don't-rock-the-boat, I'm-everybody's-friend kind of guy who won't say a goddamn thing until the bodies are already piled shoulder-high?*

While we're on that subect, would it have cost him so much of his precious time - I know, his plate is just so full, what with healthcare, the economy, the war, yada yada yada - but would it really have wrecked his day to speak just one sentence against stripping gays of their civil marriage rights in Maine?

I swear to God, guys, if Obama turns out to be fake and a fraud and a con artist like so many others, I will never, ever believe another sonofabitching politician again as long as I live, not if I live to be a hundred.

I used to say, I was never so disappointed in a man as I was in Bill Clinton.  But this could top even that.

* - Horrifying provisions of the anti-gay bill after the jump.

Etheridge Still Cool with Warren

Melissa Etheridge is okay with Warren doing the invocation at Obama's inaugural, she tells NPR news, because she understands and supports Obama's strategy of reaching out to all sides. What she says makes sense. I don't like Warren, he's just like so many grinning-hypocrite, good-fella Baptists we have here in the South; and he is never, ever going to be okay with us having full equal rights to marriage, military service, employment, or whatever.

But we got bigger fish to fry. Bills that need to passed through Congress, through state legislatures. Lots of hard work ahead, and it won't come all in one day. Think we've made the point, though, that homophobic attitudes are just no longer acceptable in public discourse. So let's move on and support Obama and demand he support us too. We've waited a long time for this new day to get here. Change has come to America, and Warren can't stop it.

So let's not let the assholes rob us of our joy at the inauguration of our new President. It's a new day, a new era, a new world. And about damn time. Be happy about that.

We're Likable Enough, But . . .

Frank Rich writes this column in the New York Times today, "You're Likable Enough, Gay People":

As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong.

In this case, the capital spent is small change. Most Americans who have an opinion about Warren like him and his best-selling self-help tome, “The Purpose Driven Life.” His good deeds are plentiful on issues like human suffering in Africa, poverty and climate change. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, but so is almost every top-tier national politician, including Obama. Unlike such family-values ayatollahs as James Dobson and Tony Perkins, Warren is not obsessed with homosexuality and abortion. He was vociferously attacked by the Phyllis Schlafly gang when he invited Obama to speak about AIDS at his Saddleback Church two years ago.

There’s no reason why Obama shouldn’t return the favor by inviting him to Washington. But there’s a difference between including Warren among the cacophony of voices weighing in on policy and anointing him as the inaugural’s de facto pope. You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.” . . .

Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.

It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.

By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.

Lay off of Warren?

Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic and columnist for the Washington Blade, has this to say about the Warren flap over on Jewcy - get off the rag:

The uproar over Warren has the detriment of confirming one of the worst stereotypes of homosexuals: hysteria. That's because Warren is the lowest common denominator of the socially conservative evangelicals. Up until the Proposition 8 fight, his political involvement extended to such hot-button, "culture war" issues as fighting African AIDS and poverty. Aside from the incest/bestiality slip (which was an effort, however clumsily executed, to make a slippery slope argument rather than a serious attempt at morally equating daughter/dog love to homosexuality) Warren has never really used his high public profile or pulpit to preach hatred of gay people, something that can hardly be said of the long list of Elmer Gantryesque charlatans the GOP has surrounded itself with over the past 30 years.

Asked what was a "greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage," Warren answered, "That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it," which makes him far more honest than most politically involved conservative evangelical preachers. Count me as being a member of the pragmatist gay camp (not to be confused with theater, dance or other camps), encapsulated by my friend Chris Crain, who writes, "It is a stroke of political brilliance to recruit a conservative megapastor in support of a president-elect who is arguably the most pro-gay, pro-choice and progressive in our history." . . .

[G]ays would do well to store their gunpowder for the truly significant legislative battles that will no doubt be fought in the years ahead. Getting rid of the odious and national security-weakening "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regulation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Matthew Shepard hate crimes law will all be possible over the next four years now that we have a Democratic president and Congress committed - at least on paper - to effecting these positive changes. If gays had given Obama some much-needed slack on Rick Warren, perhaps he'd feel a political debt to us when these truly significant issues come up for debate.

But how sincere - or politically threatening - will gay complaints about administration foot-dragging on issues that actually affect millions of gay and lesbian people sound in light of the unwarranted outrage that's been generated over the guy who's going to deliver a two-minute reading that no one will remember? Attacking the President-Elect who campaigned as the most pro-gay candidate in American history over an issue as irrelevant as this one, I fear, makes us look like we're crying wolf. And we all know how that fable ended.

What do you think, Truckers? Is it time to shut up about Warren? Or should we keep up the criticism?

We're All Happy Now?

The very well-spoken Mike Rogers of PageOneQ appeared on Hardball this week with some choice comments on the Warren fiasco that put the other side into a sputtering tizzy:

Mixner Nixes Warren

Longtime civil rights activist David Mixner, advisor to President Clinton on gay issues, has thought it all over carefully, and has this to say about the Warren flap:

What I can't shake is the firm belief that the invitation is just wrong, hurtful and a horrible way to begin the Obama presidency. I am not willing to use this single action as an indicator of what to expect from the entire eight years of the Obama Presidency, yet the symbolism of Warren leading off that special day is so sad for those of us who worked so hard for Obama. In one stroke, he took a moment of celebration for an oppressed minority that has suffered so much the last eight years and returned us to cold reality.

Rick Warren is not a good man. I am sure he does admirable work on global warming and HIV/AIDS but his hateful, divisive and ill-chosen words around Proposition 8 were inexcusable in that the ramifications of those words helped deny millions freedom and respect. "Unrepentant" homosexuals are not even allowed to join his Saddleback Church! This is a man of God? This is an oracle of wisdom? You know, Governor George Wallace was in some ways a populist and advocated programs for the poor. Some of his education programs and food programs were excellent. However, he was a racial bigot. He excluded African-Americans from enjoying the richness of his good work. I can't imagine that any programs he advocated would have justified him being given the leading role in any Presidential event given his views on segregation. It would simply not have happened. And the same can be said of Rick Warren: he is a religious bigot and his views on denying full rights and dignity to millions of LGBT Americans are vile. . . .

Obama has made his first huge misstep. I totally disagree with his inclusive 'big tent' explanation, especially when it makes us feel outside the tent. I am counting on Rev. Joseph Lowery that day to let the world know of our struggle. He has been a valuable friend for years. It is unlikely that anyone can censor him.

As for Obama, I am thrilled that he won over McCain. I look forward to amazing new policies on a number of fronts. I am not willing to toss him out, declare him evil or proclaim him our enemy based on a one-minute prayer. He hasn't even been sworn in yet. But given his actions with the Rev. Warren, we need some expression in appointments and policies that we are indeed part of this great adventure. And we need it pretty damn soon.

Mixner also has a brilliant suggestion: when Warren delivers his invocation, everybody should just quietly turn their backs on him: "Can you imagine the powerful message and indelible image of a thousand in silent protest refusing to look at nor acknowledge this man while he intones his hollow words?"

I love it. In fact, I hope Warren does give the invocation. It would be a powerful witness to the last gasp of bigotry and oppression in this new day that has dawned.

And sure hope this whole controversy will knock some sense into insecure-straight-boy Obama's head. You got my vote, big man; now what are you going to do with it?

Rachel Feels Weirded Out

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Whew, I am so relieved. I thought it was just me.

Rick Warren Loves the Gays

Rev. Warren delivers a barrelful

. . . in fact, he just loves everybody. So he says. He believes everybody in the United States should have equal rights, not a problem for him.

He just has this one little tiny objection to gays using the word marriage for their "adult consenting relationships." That's all.

Because of course, marriage has been between one woman and one man always and everywhere for the last 5,000 years. He doesn't approve, for example, of a man having several wives and calling that a marriage.

And all the heat he's been taking lately? Oh that's coming from two sources: the media love a controversy, it sells. And then there's all those damn bloggers - I guess he means like your Head Trucker here - sitting home with nothing better to do than make shit up.

It's all just a great big misunderstanding. He LOVES the gays. Really. Swear to God.

Melissa Etheridge is cool with him now. So is Andrew Sullivan.

So why the hell aren't you, hmm?

I have an answer to that last question and lots more I could say, but I've got some last-minute presents to wrap and chores to do here. Meantime, why don't you check out for yourself the Boston Globe's report, and the Beliefnet article and Warren's own clarifications on the Beliefnet interview before you answer.

And here's part one of three new video segments from his church website on the gay thing and all that:

Oh by the way, that bit about the "no gay members" on his church website? It wasn't removed, really it wasn't. It's just being "repurposed." Whatever the hell that means.

Fellas, take it from a Texan: when you smell bullshit, you sure better watch where you step.

WTF: Etheridge Warms to Rick Warren

The old hymn says, "God works in a mysterious way/His wonders to perform." So is that what's behind Melissa's sudden appreciation of Rick Warren's warm, cuddly vibes? As Etheridge tells it on HuffPo, she was scheduled to perform at an ecumenical do for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Long Beach last Saturday, when . . .

I received a call the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker that night... Pastor Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight instinct took over, should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said, "Are you really about peace or not?"

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

I admire Etheridge tremendously, and I appreciate the dream and the constructive attitude. But can the leopard change his spots? Is the reverend really such a sweetheart, or just a smooth-talking schmoozer? You'd think Etheridge, being a celebrity herself, could see through the crowd-pleasing charisma, if that's all just a ploy. He sure seems to have charmed her right out of her shoes.

I personally don't trust those glad-hand religious types one bit. It's interesting to note that Warren has just removed the "no gays allowed" warning from his church website. Change of heart, or politically expedient CYA?

I guess time will tell. As my roommate just said, if Warren were to pray a truly inclusive prayer at the Inauguration, that would really set a beacon for religious folk to follow.

But seems to me that's a mighty big IF.

Update: Here's the Rick Warren video I posted last week, referenced above:

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if Melissa isn't being played for a sucker. White man speak with forked tongue.

As the roommate and I have have discussed at length, Warren is telling a bald-faced lie when he says "I have many gay friends who've asked me 'Why can't I have multiple sex partners, it's natural?'"

Lie #1: I really cannot believe Warren - who till just the last day or so had a big damn notice on his website saying gays could NOT be members of his church - has any such "many gay friends." It's amazing how people like him and Palin and Pat Boone and Donny Osmond all claim to have so many gay friends . . . I don't freakin' think so!

Lie #2: Who the hell do you know that would ever even ask such a silly question in the first place? It just beggars belief.

Lies #3 and so on: "Marriage has always and everywhere been the same for the last 5,000 years." WRONG. Amazing that somebody with a degree in theology could so quickly and conveniently ignore the blazing fact that the ancient Hebrews were big-time polygamists: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc., etc., etc. Hardly a model for modern "family values."

And if you ask any creationist to explain how the human race got started, they will tell you quite seriously that before the Flood, men married their sisters to get the population ball rolling. We call it incest now, but that was just fine back then . . . so they say. WTF?

And we haven't even started to talk about all the thousands of other cultures and marriage/sexual practices there have been all over this old world.

Okay, so we have the evidence on tape that Warren is a flat-out liar. Or else just extremely ignorant, if not stupid. I sure hope Etheridge isn't being snookered in to take a ride on the homophobe train here.

Rachel Maddow on Rick Warren

Our favorite newshound, Rachel Maddow, reports a lot more on Rick Warren's poop-headedness. This guy needs to be 86'd from the Inaugural, fast. And if Obama has any sense of decency, he'll make that happen. Fast.

WTF: Rick Warren to Pray at Inauguration

Rick and Barack having a bonding moment earlier this year

Oh no! Obama has invited homophobe Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in California to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20th.

Yep, that's the same Rick Warren who supported Prop 8. I cannot f****** believe this.

Is Obama really that clueless?? I love the guy - so far. But this really, really raises a big red flag in my mind.

The HRC has already fired off an open letter to Obama, which reads in part:

Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

I totally agree. This does not bode well for us, guys, if the incoming administration is that insensitive and that callous. What happened to that "CHANGE we can believe in," huh? . . .

People for the American Way had this to say:

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

And this guy is going to be part of the inaugural ceremonies for the new President? The movie Groundhog Day comes to mind here for some reason. Scary thought. Think we need to raise a fuss about this one, y'all.

More reactions at these blogs:

Joe.My.God.

Pam's House Blend

Andrew Sullivan

P.S. To date, as far as your Head Trucker knows, Mr. O. has not made a single public comment about the Prop 8 protests. What does that say? Can straight boys ever be trusted to do the right thing? I'm just asking.

Update. In case you need convincing that this is a horribly bad choice, here's Rick Warren advising his flock to support Prop 8; and he doesn't even have his fundamentalist facts right:

Andrew Sullivan, who married his husband Aaron in Massachusetts last year, has this trenchant observation:

Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.