Comments on: Rick Warren and LGBT Families: Opposing Views

By: Scotti

Scotti — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:29:04 +0000

While Warren is a preacher, he’s also basically a politician. Like most other politicians, he’ll say whatever he needs to say to whomever he needs to say it, as the situation calls for.

“I’m with Melissa Etheridge so I’d better appear ‘pro-gay.’ But, when I’m in my church, not so much.”

It’s all such a joke. Just another homophobic preacher lumping us together with pedophiles while he’s got his shot in the limelite.

By: Theresa

Theresa — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:43:52 +0000

I think Obama did mean to reach out by choosing Warren but I think he knew darn well how hurtful his choice would be to LGBTs. He just had different priorities.

I would like to admire Warren’s work for the good, but I cannot get past the fundamental moral error: he does not distinguish between “homosexual behavior is wrong for me” and “homosexual behavior is wrong for EVERYBODY and must be discouraged by the government.”

Warren says Jews are going to hell too, but he hasn’t tried to ban Shabbat observation or prevent rabbis from performing marriages. Maybe he would like the US to become a fundamentalist Protestant theocracy (to the extent it’s not already one…), but social pressure prevents him from pushing too hard for it.

I don’t care what he thinks or preaches in church, but I do care what legislation he fights for. So the fact that he toned down his public statements on gays is a big step for me. We can change the political landscape, whether or not we can change his personal feelings or his theology.

By: Gail

Gail — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:47:09 +0000

I believe in reaching out across those lines because I know that interacting with gay/lesbian/trans people changes minds and hearts. I also believe that we have to fight for our rights, even when that means getting angry and engaging in active conflict.

As far as Obama’s selection goes, I wish it was someone different, but I’m glad that Warren is at least appearing to moderate his views. Whether its a PR move or not, it still represents some progress. And I’m not convinced Obama is really firmly in the camp of glbt rights, certainly not marriage rights. I remain hopeful about our future, but I don’t think Obama is going to do much to help glbt folks. He’s got bigger fish he’d rather fry, as I think his selection of Warren shows.

By: SusanGabriel

SusanGabriel — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:02:44 +0000

Does a powerful (as viewed by a patriarchial society) white male really have any need to seek redemption in our society? It’s hard for me to believe that he would see the need to change his views. I would be more inclined to believe that he is practicing the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude and feeling pretty righteous while he’s doing it.

I see Melissa’s position, too, and I would like to hope that reaching out to Warren and his people would make a difference. But on this issue, I feel a bit skeptical.

By: Renee Pouvreau

Renee Pouvreau — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:37:56 +0000

I so want to believe that the removal of the anti-gay rhetoric on his site was done, not out of PR but from an evolving sense of the LGBT community as one of loving couples, families. However, I reserve my support.

Watching Ann Curry’s recent interview with Warren dispells the idea that he is swaying. His words are hateful and hurtful to us and our families. They were not bridges but walls. His about face with Melissa appears like another PR false face. His reaction to Lutes was probably closer to the true self, off camera out of the spotlight.

But, as you point out, I think we need to approach this from another angle. Not as an angry mob, protesting in front of churches but as intelligent, honest loving people that are a part of the community and have always been, whether it was visible or not. As many of us were taught, you gather more with honey than with vinegar.