Obama defends choice of evangelical pastor

Sometimes you know you've done something right when everyone is equally pissed off.  Heh.

Yeah, goooooo Obama!

Obama is a christian and it would not have mattered what Christian clergy he selected it would have met with criticism.

Obama is a member of the UCC. Not all Christians are alike. If they were then there wouldn't be so many different denominations. And Catholics and Prodestants wouldn't have killed each other in such great numbers...and the Puritans wouldn't have come to North America because they didn't agree with the Church of England.

There is no reason why he couldn't have gone with someone more inclusive, like someone from his own denomination...which actually would've made sense.

His choice had nothing to do with his faith, and everything to do with politics.

Romeo,

There is no reason why he couldn't have gone with someone more inclusive, like someone from his own denomination...which actually would've made sense.

Now this is a ridiculous comment.  Every one he has been affiliated with spiritually some special interest group has picked apart.  He got flack over Rev. Wright, he's been called a "closet muslim" etc.  There would have been some gripe no matter who he picked.

Southern Bell,

Aren't Christians Christians? Since when does it matter what denomination they worship under? This is why I don't do religion, I love God but this is madness. He can't let one group make unnecessary demands on him. No one group is responsible for Obama winning the election. He will not be a president for one group of people. Many of us voted for him but that doesn't give any of us, or entitle any of to special treatment. He has a right to have a pastor, whatever pastor he wants beside him if it comforts him.

You know I could see if this was a gay pride convention and he showed up with this pastor, now that would be offensive. But this is his inauguration. It has nothing to do with gay people or those who are pro choice. It's not something any of us have a right to make an issue of, not any of us. 

Aren't Christians Christians?

No.  Different "Christian" denominations believe radically different things.  Sometimes the only common denominator is that they all claim to believe in Christ.  In fact, the differences between "Christian" denominations sometimes leads to them being more different from one another than Judaism is different from Islam. 

You know I could see if this was a gay pride convention and he showed up with this pastor, now that would be offensive. But this is his inauguration. It has nothing to do with gay people or those who are pro choice. It's not something any of us have a right to make an issue of, not any of us.

Would you say the same thing about, for example, a casually racist pastor? (In other words, a pastor who has made racist comments in the past but is not specifically going to be racist in his invocation?)

"This ceremony isn't about black people or those who fight for civil rights. It's about inaugurating a US president. It's not something any of us have a right to make an issue of, not any of us."

I have every right to make an issue of it. What if he choose the pastor from the Aryan Church of Christ?

He made a bad choice.

Carla,

Southern Bell,

Aren't Christians Christians? Since when does it matter what denomination they worship under?

My point was he has not recognized a specific group but is trying to bring some unity between special interest groups.  The fact that Rick Warren is going to get up at a podium give a prayer and exit is no more of a threat to the gay community than if Billy Graham did it, or the Pope.  The catholic church doesn't support gay marriage, would we have this much hissing over the Pope had he been ask, or any of the other cardinals of the church.

Hell the way some are acting he might as well invited Rev. Phelps, now that is the epitimey of hatred! 

SB: As far as I know, the pope doesn't lobby against gay marriage in the US... the country Barack is becoming president of.

Rick Warren specifically tries to put his religion into law, tearing down the wall of separation between church and state.

Inviting him to pray or whatever is symbolically endorsing him.

Foufga,

The pope doesn't lobby against gay marriage here in the US.  This being true doesn't stop the catholic church or it's parishioners from lobbying against gay marriage in support of the church, which at the head of that religion is the Pope. 

Rick Warren would be just like any other conservative minister of a church, the difference is he has a massive following.  He didn't overturn the ban on gay marriage by himself nor with just his congregation, there had to be many many others in order to overturn that amendment.  If he didn't have the backing of the conservative base, he wouldn't have a platform.  His church is based in California (geographically)  but other states in this country have voted to ban gay marriage. 

Inviting him to pray, may be just trying to offer an olive branch as to recognize the conservatives in this country.  Can anyone on here name another conservative that has been invited to join the festivities?  If not then I would think he is including a representative from each group that he will have to work with on social issues that face our society and our tolerance to those social issues.

As far as I know, the pope doesn't lobby against gay marriage in the US

Two of the single largest donors to the Yes on 8 campaign in California were Catholic organizations: the first the Knights of Columbus (I believe $500,000 in total donations) and the second from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (basically, the US Catholic Church's leading organization, which I believe was $200,000).

Actually, I rescind the comment about the pope. I wouldn't be okay with him inaugurating Obama either, considering his comments from Monday. Like I say, I don't think there should be any prayer at the inauguration.

Thanks spiffie for the info. I wasn't aware the modern Catholic church was far gone. I had heard it was primarily the Mormons' fault.

PS How are ya? Am just now back on the vine for break. I've found I can't strike a good balance between work and the internet during school. :-)

How are ya? Am just now back on the vine for break. I've found I can't strike a good balance between work and the internet during school.

I'm doing pretty well.  Glad to hear you fell on the "light side" of that balance.  When I fought that battle, I always went over to the dark side.  ;-)

I'm starting to err on the side of too much Newsvine! Hopefully I'll get that in check soon.

I don't think Warren is that terrible a choice, but I have to disagree with you. There's a big difference between banning someone from speaking and not inviting them to come speak at your party.

There's a big difference between banning someone from speaking and not inviting them to come speak at your party.

I agree, I wouldn't ban the KKK from making speeches, but that doesn't mean I want them in my home doing it.

I absolutely agree with the distinction you draw between "banning" and not inviting.  I used the word because it had been used (or implicated) in previous posts on this thread.  You are correct to note that Obama could merely not have invited the pastor.

However, making the argument that the pastor should not have been invited because of his beliefs regarding gay marriage necessarily assumes that those beliefs are somehow wrong.  They are not "wrong".  The point of my first post was that this is an open debate.  Both sides argue adamantly about it. 

Sure, it's popular to frame anti-gay marriage advocates as homophobes, just as it is to frame anti-affirmative action advocates as racists.  But, these stereotypes do more harm than good.  When you stigmatize one view, you stifle any meaningful debate (this is true on both side of the gay marriage issue). 

Demanding that Obama not invite a certain speaker because his views differ from your own is demanding intolerance.

Demanding that Obama not invite a certain speaker because his views differ from your own is demanding intolerance.

Not true. I would be just as adamant and angry if he'd invite a KKK Grand Dragon or the head of a skinhead organization, because the views of Rick Warren when it comes to gay rights are every bit as repugnant to gay rights supporters as the white supremists views are. It is most certainly NOT intolerance to oppose someone who openly attacks you. "Love thine enemy" doesn't apply here. Or do you propose that when someone is beating you that it would be intolerant to do everything you can to oppose him and to get him to stop? Rick Warren openly assaults gay rights and gay rights advocates are not intolerant because they want him to stop. That's absurd.

But, seriously, it really makes the movement look bad when your argument is foundationed on "equality and tolerance" and then you are blatantly intolerant of opposing view point. What, since the other side is "so bigoted" they must not be allowed to speak?

When we talk about equality for gays and lesbians, we are talking law. The point here is to ensure that gays and lesbians are seen as equal citizens under the law, not to force everyone to like and make friends with gay people. I don't care if Rick Warren dislikes gays. He can dislike them all he wants. However, I do care if Rick Warren is actively trying to use government to enforce his personal beliefs at the expense of the rights of gays and lesbians.

You can dislike someone and still be tolerant of them. Tolerance doesn't mean "everybody hold hands and sing pretty songs and never say anything unkind ever".

I dislike Rick Warren, and but I'm not going to demand the government close down his church. I'm not going to attempt to use government to deny him the right to marry. I'm not trying to use the government to treat him as a second class citizen. He can exist how he sees fit, as an equal member of the country that I reside in.

However, those that look to the government to ban gay marriage through constitutional amendments and other such nonsense are indeed trying to use the government to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens, they want the law to treat them as unequal.

Yet I'm supposed to accept an argument that claims that someone using government to mess with people's rights and lives based on their personal beliefs is somehow equivalent to me not liking pastor Warren? On what planet is this even remotely close to being equivalent?

When the gay rights movement starts to use the government to stifle people's personal or moral disagreement with gay marriage, or force churches that don't support gay marriage to perform them, or attempt to outlaw hetero marriage, or force people that disagree with homosexuality to marry someone of the same sex, then you will have an equivalence.

But as it stands now, to argue that being upset with a someone that believes some people should be second-class citizens = someone that attempts to use government to deny equal rights to a group of people is absurd and dishonest.

(36.4) Not true. I would be just as adamant and angry if he'd invite a KKK Grand Dragon or the head of a skinhead organization . . .

This statement, while sounding conclusive, is illogical.  Namely, we choose to allow a Christian prayer at the inauguration (this choice is debatable), and the vast majority of Christians disagree with gay marriage.  In fact, your "inviting the KKK to pray" example is really the rough equivalent (from the Christian perspective) of inviting a pro-gay pastor (a minority with radical, offensive beliefs relative to the majority of Christians).

The real question we should be asking is whether or not we want to have a Christian prayer at all.

(2) Stacy, I agree with most of the opinions in your well-written post.  My point in (36) is that this is a debate, not a foregone conclusion.  The status quo is that homosexuals do not have the right to marry.  Whether the status quo (no marriage) is good or bad is the subject of heated debate.  Saying:

(36.5) the point here is to ensure that gays and lesbians are seen as equal citizens under the law

. . . is assumes the correctness of your conclusion from the outset.  Namely, it assumes that the law (which is usually dictated by some form of popular vote) should recognize the homosexuals "liberty" to marry or that the court should recognize the "right." 

Whether or not we will vote to grant homosexuals this "liberty" will likely depend on who wins the "debate" regarding homosexuality.  Do I believe we should "give" them this liberty?  "Yes, it was never ours to "give" in the first place; homosexuals are taxpaying citizens."  But, that is just my opinion.  Others need convincing.  One interesting question will be whether our popular vote (Obama) ends up appointing justices who find a "right" to marry in the Constitution despite the majority's preference.

(3) My point in (36) is that stifling the debate (on either side) is not a desirable action.  We should be "tolerant" of those who argue for homosexual marriage and we should be "tolerant" of those who argue against it.

The major problem with the debate right now is that it has broken down into name calling.  Both sides assume opposite truths regarding an essential premise--"whether or not homosexuality is a choice."  It will be very difficult to get people to agree on the homosexual marriage issue until we get agreement on that premise.  This is because, if it is a "choice" then: (1) the religions can attach all the stigma they want to it and (2) it is not a currently protected "immutable" characteristic for the purposes of the Constitution.   Unfortunately, that debate has taken a back seat to the name calling.

The other important debate is whether or not, even assuming homosexuality is a "choice," the state should recognize a homosexual's citizen's desire to marry because homosexuals are equal, taxpaying citizens under secular law. 

...............................................................................................................................

Like I said, unfortunately neither side is willing to genuinely debate these points with each other.  Both sides, instead resort to name calling, stigma, and censorship.

Stacy, thanks for the great post. Specifically, I think the following paragraph addresses most of the points P. Locke is trying to make:

However, those that look to the government to ban gay marriage through constitutional amendments and other such nonsense are indeed trying to use the government to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens, they want the law to treat them as unequal.

P. Locke, I appreciate the difficulty of finding a centrist and "bias-free" position on such an emotional topic as the equality of gays as US citizens.

I do, in this case, think you're wrong to be centrist.

Specifically, I think you're wrong to say that this is even a question for debate. Stacy has done a wonderful job of conveying why exactly it is not up for debate, but you've still responded with a follow-up post indicating you do think that equality is debatable. Let's see if we can clear that up, along with some of the requirements (and non-requirements) of tolerance, which will go to the heart of this thread.

Stacy, I agree with most of the opinions in your well-written post.  My point in (36) is that this is a debate, not a foregone conclusion.  The status quo is that homosexuals do not have the right to marry.  Whether the status quo (no marriage) is good or bad is the subject of heated debate.

However much people may want to debate this issue, in a liberal democracy it should (perhaps this seems counterintuitive to you) not, in fact, be questionable.

To make this clearer, let's take a look at what democracy is not: anarchy. If democracy were a euphemism for anarchy, then sure, everything would eventually be up for debate—that is, a struggle for power, and eventually forming stable institutions. Okay, so this is anarchy drastically simplified, but my point is, in a liberal democracy, the will of "the people" is not always what will be put into law.

Put a different way, liberal democracy makes assumptions that are core to its foundation—namely, that everyone is equal and that everyone will be given the same rights. They will be given the same rights regardless of whether they "deserve" them or have enough power to enforce them via a majority vote.

These are among the theoretical grounds for the idea that the majority must never be allowed to vote on "fundamental" rights of anyone, including the minority.

If the government gives a special status/privileges to a couple, then that status must be granted to all couples who apply for it it. (Let's not get into children right now, they seem to constitute a special case when it comes to rights—think of parents' power over their children.) It is that simple. The US cannot be a legitimate liberal democracy until basic rights like this are beyond any sort of popular vote. Putting them up for a vote is indistinguishable from putting the right to kill random persons up for a vote. It is simply not allowed by the assumptions of a liberal democracy. By definition.

Now, to your conception of tolerance. You claim:

[W]e choose to allow a Christian prayer at the inauguration (this choice is debatable), and the vast majority of Christians disagree with gay marriage.  In fact, your "inviting the KKK to pray" example is really the rough equivalent (from the Christian perspective) of inviting a pro-gay pastor (a minority with radical, offensive beliefs relative to the majority of Christians).

The real question we should be asking is whether or not we want to have a Christian prayer at all.

I agree with the last part: we should definitely ask if a Christian prayer is acceptable in an inauguration, and I think that question is fairly simple. However, I'm concerned with the first paragraph here.

You're being distracted by a red herring here when you say that the KKK and homophobes are not comparable. You say that because the KKK is in the minority and homophobes are (you claim) in the majority (I don't think that's true), then they are not analogous. However, the analogy hinges not on who is accepted and who isn't, but on who is violating rights. The KKK continually seeks to violate the rights of other people. And so do vocal anti-gay lobbyists. It is the effort to quash a fundamental right that makes them analogous and not their status or accepted-ness in society. If that were, in fact, true, then if the KKK were more accepted, it would be noble to invite them to speak at the inauguration.

Really what I want you to see, though, is that people's desire to debate a question does not mean that a question is legally debatable in a liberal democracy.

Hey Stace and foufga,

(1) You both debate well and make strong points for the pro-marriage side of the issue.  As I said before, my personal opinions mirror your own.  But, we have to understand that we are in the minority.  Essentially, if I may boil down our discussion, I believe these two quotes capture our issue well:

(Stace, 36.5) The point here is to ensure that gays and lesbians are seen as equal citizens under the law . . .

and

These are among the theoretical grounds for the idea that the majority must never be allowed to vote on "fundamental" rights of anyone, including the minority.

Essentially, you are both arguing that the homosexual marriage issue should not be decided by vote, but rather, that the court should find a "fundamental right" for gays to marry because homosexuality is an "immutable characteristic" (i.e., gender and race).  The two avenues in our liberal democracy for homosexual marriage to become a reality are: (1) popular vote (women's suffrage, anti-discrimination laws, Prop 8, and Federal Defense of Marriage Act) or (2) a court decision (Brown v. Board). 

If the court does not find homosexuality to be an "immutable characteristic" protected by the Constitution, the issue must be settled by vote.  Your statements, however, assume that the essential debate regarding whether homosexuality is an "immutable characteristic"  is settle.  It is not.  The problem and the debate are as follows:

(P. Locke, 36.6) Both sides assume opposite truths regarding an essential premise--"whether or not homosexuality is a choice."  It will be very difficult to get people to agree on the homosexual marriage issue until we get agreement on that premise.  This is because, if it is a "choice" then: (1) the religions can attach all the stigma they want to it and (2) it is not a currently protected "immutable characteristic" for the purposes of the Constitution.   Unfortunately, that debate has taken a back seat to the name calling. 

Again, I spend enough time with people on both sides of this issue (and just look at the posts on this story), to know that this debate is not even close to being settled.  Without a clear victor on that issue, the problems will continue.  Even if homosexuals win the right to marry in court, the majority who are opposed will remain unconvinced.  Additionally, being that Federal and most state anti-discrimination laws do not protect homosexuals from discriminatinon (these laws are decided by popular vote), retaliatory discrimination against homosexuals may occur. 

The point: if the majority remains unconvinced, a court decision will not help the cause in the long run; in fact the effort towards "true meta-equality" may be hurt by a controvercial court decision on this issue.

(2) One interesting issue is that homosexuality was relatively recently (80's I believe) removed from the DSM's list iof psychological disorder's (compare DSM III and DSM IV).  While, the classification was a thorn in the side of homosexual groups, it might have offered another avenue to pursue marriage (i.e., "we have a currently defined psychological disorder, we are disabled, you have laws in place recognizing certain disabled rights, an extension of these rights is warranted).  Also, being that psychology is trending toward defining every disorder as at least partially genetic (nature v. nurture), it could have provided a means to win the essential debate regarding "choice"(above).

(3) Back to my point in (1) above . . . More importantly, stategically speaking, while a court decision would be a quick fix for homosexuals (essentially taking the issue off the voting block and mandating homosexual marriage everywhere), the issue of whether or not homosexuals should accomplish their goals this way remains an open question.  Just because it is possible does not mean it is desirable. 

For instance, lets compare two groups who gained "equality" through different means, namely women and blacks.  Women gained "equality" (suffrage) and attempted to gain more Equality (ERA) by vote--constitutional amendments.  Blacks gained "equality" through the court (Brown v. Board and progeny).  Although both later gained "more equality" via statute (vote: Title VII anti-discrim), the first steps were taken in dramatically different ways.  The women "convinced" and the blacks "marched".  Granted, they both tried to "convince" and "marched", but the end game for women was decided by vote (new amendment), while the end game for blacks was decided by the court (reinterpreting existing Amendments).

The difference in outcomes years later is at least notable.  In essence, I would argue that because women gained their "equality" through vote (vote by men), it gave their equality an additional legitimacy.  There wasn't any room left for the masogonysts to whine because they were beat "fair and square." 

(4) I'm still of the opinion that the debate can be won (especially by strategic use of education, the media, and entertainment industries).  I think that imposing an unpopular mandate on everyone when most remain unconvinced will do more harm than good for gays in the long run.  As such, I think that Obama was right in allowing this fundamentalist Christian guy to speak.  Let's hope this crazy's speech scares a few more normal people into agreement with us when they get a taste of the man behind the curtain on the other side.

P. Locke, religion is not an "immutable characteristic" yet it is protected under anti-discrimination laws. The government cannot forbid a Jew from marrying a Catholic. But a Catholic church and a Jewish synagogue can certainly decline to perform the ceremony.

And the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were not put to popular vote. They were voted on by the legislature, not the electorate. We are a republic, not a direct democracy.

Why use Brown v. Board as an example and not the obvious Loving v. Virginia?

GrrrlRomeo,

Several Points:

(1) The popular vote v. republic point you made has no bearing.  Congress is the closest proxy we have to a popular vote on most national issues; they are popularly elected and ostensibly represent popular sentiment.  When I say "popular vote" from now on, please make the rational assumption and assume that I mean vote by the popularly elected legislature.  As such, with this new understanding . . .

(GrrrlRomeo, 36.9) " . . . the 9th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were not put to popular vote. They were voted on by the legislature, not the electorate."

Being that we both agree that we live in a republic and the legislature is a close indirect proxy for popular vote (they are popularly elected rather than appointed), these amendments were essentially passed by popular vote.  Thank you for the correction, nevertheless.  Now that we understand each other, let's just leave it at that.

My point was that our elected officials (who vote by proxy for us) may have to vote on this.  As such, we should debate whether we want something like this passed.  The outcome of our debate will be reflected directly on referendum-style state constitutional amendments like the ones that just passed in FL and CA.  The outcome of our debate will also be reflected indirectly by (1) legislative votes and (2) Presidential court appointments.

(2)

 (GrrlRomeo, 36.9) ". . . religion is not an "immutable characteristic" yet it is protected under anti-discrimination laws."

This confuses the two ways we could allow/mandate gay marriage (i.e., (1) via popular vote (legislature) or (2) via the court). 

The "immutable characteristic" distinction is only relevant for purposes of equal protection analysis by the court.  The anti-discrimination laws do not consider whether a characteristic is immutable or not.  Hypothetically, the legislature (us) could protect any characteristic they choose so long as it is not later found to violate the Constitution.  

You mention Loving.  Loving is a case that is roughly analogous to the gay marriage issue (VA ban on interracial marriage struck down by SCOTUS).  However, I did not use it because is distinguishable; the case involved interracial marriage (race is a recognized "immutable characteristic". . . see Brown and post-civil war amendments).  To use Loving is to assume that sexual preference, like race, is an immutable characteristic.  This is precisely the first issue I am saying we should debate (see 36.9).  I used Brown as an  example of the protection the court will afford if it does find a characteristic to be immutable and protected under the Constitution.

Loving doesn't apply to homosexual marriage, yet.   In order for Loving to apply, the court would have to hold homosexuality to be an immutable characteristic, then state laws prohibiting marriage because of that characteristic would likely violate the Equal protection or Due process clauses of the Constitution (depending on the level of scruting applied by the court. . .right now homosexuals may get "heightened rational basis review" (only one step above essentially no review at all (see Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (HRBR applied to Texas anti-sodomy law)  and compare race and gender ("immutable") which get strict scrutiny. . . strict scrutiny essentially means almost all state restrictions based on those characteristics are violative per se)

(3) My original point was that we can either do it through popular vote (the legislature) or via the court.  Popular vote (legislature...statute) is preferable because it add legitimacy to homosexual marriages if it appears that homosexuals have won "fair and square" by convincing a majority of Americans (or the legislative proxy for that).  

Homosexuals could use the court, but it is highly unlikely that the Robert's Court will hold in homosexual's favor on this point and, even if the court does find homosexuality to be immutable, a court decision has the popularity disadvantage mentioned above--do you really want Christians protesting your marriages like they do abortions when you could easily sway public opinion in your favor, get it passed via statute, and avoid the problem?

Yes, you are right, we have used the popular vote (legislature) to protect a lot of characteristics that are not otherwise protected by the Constitution (characteristics that are not "immutable").  But, whether or not we decide to protect homosexual marriages depends on the outcome of the debate we are having about the issue.  Declaring anyone opposed to homosexual marriage a homophobe and implying that their views are similar to the KKK (1) assumes the correctness of your position, (2) is, in my opinion an underhanded and narrow-minded way to discuss an issue, and (3) only makes consensus/majority more difficult because it is polarizing.

P. Locke, I'm not sure why it is that a characteristic has to be immutable to be protected by law?

If you would explain the philosophical groundwork for that, maybe we could proceed.

Good god guys.  "Immutable characteristic" is not a philosphy, it is a legal concept justifying the Supreme Court's previous Equal Protection decisions.

I.  Two ways homosexual marriage happens: 

(1) We enact a statute (we do this generally when a majority of people (via their representatives) feel something is appropriate.  "Immutable characteristic" is not an issue because, so long as our statute does not violate the Constitution, we are free to legislate.  Enacting a statute requires a "debate" (please see my previous posts). 

(2) The court says it is unconstitutional not to allow gay marriage (by saying a previously enacted statute forbidding it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause).  The court would hypothetically do this by choosing to classify "sexual preference" as a protected trait and then applying "Strict scrutiny" to any state law that makes distinctions based on sexual preference (i.e., state statutes saying no homosexual marriage). 

The 14th Amendment was enacted during the Civil War era to ensure that Southern states could not make their own laws allowing slavery (because the 5th Amendment's Equal Protection clause only applies to the Federal government).  Initially the Supreme Court interpreted the 14h Amendment to only apply to Blacks.  Eventually, they extended the protection to other groups (i.e., gender and alienage).

The most commonly accepted legal theory unifying the Supreme Court decisions is that the Supreme Court has decided to interpret the 14th Amendment as protecting certain "immutable characteristics" (i.e., race, gender, or parentage (alienage)). 

"Immutable characteristics" is a self-explanatory phrase, they  are group characteristics that the individual has no control over--"you're and many others are born that way".   You can see the distinction when you examine other classes that the Court has not granted 14th Amendment protection to (compare poverty, age, and disability).

As such, if gays are seeking to get state laws overturned by a Supreme Court decision (one of the two ways they could get marriage), they are going to have to make an argument that homosexuality is an "immutable characteristic" much like race, gender, or alienage.  Thus far, they have been mostly unsuccessful (see Romer v. Evans (1996) for what is likely the biggest success).  And, classifying homosexuality as an "immutable characteristic" requires debate (see above posts).

II.

So, the point.  Two ways a characteristic gets protected: statute and court.  "Immutable characteristic" only comes into play if homosexuals try to get the right to marry by attempting to use the court to achieve their ends (by overturning state laws as a violation of 14th amendment Equal Protection).  Again, either method of achieving homosexual marriage requires debate; debate requires two sides; attaching an artificial stigma to the other side is polarizing and unproductive. 

The basic questions to be debated are: (1) whether homosexuality is a choice or whether it is genetic (rough analogy to "immutable characteristic debate in court); and (2) whether, given the result of the debate regarding "choice", we should allow homosexuals to marry.

I understand the legal theory behind it, but I'm saying the political theory of liberal democracy has no place for the phrase immutable characteristic. In fact, since all of our characteristics presumably follow the fundamental forces/biochemistry/cause and effect, the term really has no meaning. (We are who we are because of what we are and where we've been... not because of some sort of free will.)

Skipping that debate for now, though, I do not think it necessary to prove that homosexuality is a choice, because even if it is a choice it is a person's choice to make. They are free to make that choice in a liberal democracy.

What's more, if homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality would logically also be a choice, and heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either.

I think that the Supreme Court are intelligent enough to understand that, and if Barack Obama gets to select proper justices for any positions that open up, perhaps a new precedent will be set where immutable characteristic is thrown out of their dictionary.

Relying on the immutability of homosexuality is probably not the very best strategy in the short term, if for the only reason that the science is not completely settled yet.  All of the science strongly suggests that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, but it's far from a fully answered question, and there's no reason to think the question will be fully answered in the next several years.  Complex human behaviors, like sexuality, are the result of many biological and psychological factors interacting with each other.

Immutability is also a poor strategy for the simple reason that it's unnecessary.  There are other behaviors that are protected which are quite obviously not immutable, and a more robust argument could be made analogously from those.  

An example would be religion, which is very clearly a choice and very clearly mutable (many change religions to get married, even).  However, it would be just as offensive to most people to say that a Catholic and a Jew could not get married as it would be to say a Black man and a White woman could not get married.  The mutability of the religious affiliation is of no concern to the degree of offense that it causes; the same should be true of homosexual relationships.

Religion is a matter of personal conscience; in a similar way, so is a person's stance on homosexuality and whether or not they enter such relationships.  Matters of personal conscience, like free speech, freedom religious expression, and freedom of association (including, it would seem to me, freedom to romantically associate) are protected in our society, even though matters of conscience are not immutable.

kevin - yes, on gay marriage, but not on gay people. 

That is not at all true. It's essentially the debate Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had, and no one seemed to understand. Biden/Obama say that it is illegitimate to deny anyone rights based on their sexuality. But they do say (to appease the conservatives) that the word "marriage" should not be applied. If I understood Biden's talk correctly, equal rights and civil unions should be applied for all people, and marriage should be a word that carries nothing but religious connotations.

Sarah Palin responded by calling that distinction "nuanced" (which was laughable) and saing that we should tolerate gay people but not give them fully equal rights.

Rick Warren also thinks that gays should not be allowed to function in normal, government-sponsored relationships and that the very idea of gay is a sign of weakness or immaturity that should not be condoned by government.

I hope you recognize the distinction.

I think this conservative has it exactly right. They DO have exactly the same view on gay MARRIAGE. Despite the apologists point of view shown by the two people who responded, who say nothing that disproves his statement, this conservative is right.   

If you're going to make unbacked assertions, so will I.

This conservative is right.

Nope.

Barrack Obama does not believe same-sex marriage should be banned.

Rick Warren worked to get same-sex marriage banned.

Obama doesn't want to legislate his personal beliefs.

Rick Warren wants to force us all to follow his personal beliefs.

Obama doesn't want to legislate his personal beliefs.

Thanks GrrlRomeo,

This is key. I suspect that Obama is secretly in favor of gay marriage, but no top politician has advocated it on a national level. Certainly, Obama is not hostile to the idea, and I do think we'll see an effort on his part to allow gay marriage if America finally grows up.

What mental disorder do you refer to?

Check your numbers, Sub Saharan Africa has over 25 million cases of aids, can you explain that away as a homosexual problem?

Homosexuality was removed from the DSMII back in 1973. Bring your mind up to the current times.

Not be a stickler here since AIDS and HIV+ are serious and horrible diseases, but the number of cases in Africa is most likely grossly overstated for two primary reasons: 1) to get humanitarian aid for those presently afflicted, and 2) because a lot of deaths are classified as AIDS to get humanitarian aid.

Joe, the mental health community does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. You're actually going against science.

(I know NotSanta just said that, but I think it's highly unlikely that Joe has any idea what the DSMII is.)

Dev did you just downplay the plight of AIDs in Africa?

No, I shed light on a bit of the sham that the Gates Foundation is trying to remedy.

I got my numbers from the W.H.O. Where did you get yours?

good luck on that high road strategy....

It is not about now...it is about down the line..what we fight for is to unify not only the current generation..(which may not change their views)...look ahead though..those coming up behind us...they see the world differently..they are the ones who have to carry the mantle..they are the ones who not only see the fruits of our labors our work, our discusasions change their attitiudes....their changing attitudes become the light for those who come after.  People look just at Warren...yes, he is a bigoted creationist...but..he and Obama agree on other issues. 

Additionally since when has Obama been one to surround himself only with those who share his total vision?? 

The fact of the matter is he is pro-gay and pro-choice...that will never change.  He mearly wants to s how the world that we must all embrace each other and move forward...in this way we achieve a greater level of understanding...wisdom and compassion...