Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
GayPatriot is the internet home for American gay conservatives and hailed as "the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet."
"Terrific blog" -- Michael Barone, principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
GayPatriot
Promote Your Page Too
FOLLOW GAY PATRIOT ON TWITTER!
Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot)
- Email: bruce -at- gaypatriot.org
B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest)
- Email: GayPatriotWest -at- aol.com
Sarjex Muller
- Email: Sarjex -at- gmail.com
Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
- Email: ColoradoPatriot -at- gmail.com
Rick Warren to give invocation at Obama’s inauguration.
Warren is hardly a fan of gay rights, which Obama supposedly champions, as can be seen in this interview:
h/t Good As You
Where’s that hopeandchange liberal gays claimed I “betrayed” by voting against The One?
UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!!!
– John (Average Gay Joe)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Stabbed in the back by the leader of your own party.
Now you know how conservatives feel about McCain.
Comment by V the K — December 17, 2008 @ 9:31 pm - December 17, 2008
Delicious. Too bad it’s not Jeremiah Wright – that would be entertainment!
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 17, 2008 @ 9:59 pm - December 17, 2008
I’m hardly thrilled by Warren speaking at the inaug, but, AGJ, what “hopeandchange” (I love the childish, schoolyard taunts that reveal more about the speaker than those they are supposed to ridicule) was supposed to come about during the inauguration? What laws would be passed, what orders signed, what actual susbtantive change to fix the neglect and disaster of Republican rule would come about at the swearing-in as opposed to the actual leading of the country?
Leave it to a blog that’s spent years cheerleading those that have helped destroy our country’s military and economy and, well, everything to confuse a ceremony with actual governing. Mission accomplished, one might say.
Comment by torrentprime — December 18, 2008 @ 12:03 am - December 18, 2008
I’m hardly thrilled by Warren speaking at the inaug, but,
AGJ, what “hopeandchange†(I love the childish, schoolyard taunts that reveal more about the speaker than those they are supposed to ridicule) was supposed to come about during the inauguration?I’ll make it obvious that I’m an utter hypocrite who refuses to criticize Democrats for doing what I viciously attack Republicans as “homophobic” for doing and namecall other gays who point that out instead.Fixed it for you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2008 @ 12:42 am - December 18, 2008
Oh, and torrentprime, when you attack Obama as a homophobic bigot who hates gay people and denies them rights, just like you do Republicans who say marriage is “sacred” and endorse and support Rick Warren, you might make a point. But until then, all you make obvious is that gay liberals like yourself don’t care about marriage bans or “homophobic” pastors when Democrat Party politicians support them — which makes it obvious that the only reasons you want gay marriage are political and have nothing to do with actual marriage, given how you will gladly trade them away to please and support your Democrat masters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2008 @ 12:47 am - December 18, 2008
Perhaps, this will begin something of an awakening among those rabidly Dem gays – that they have just been used for years as a political tool. There seems to be absolutely no self awareness or political awareness among these folks.
Comment by Stosh2 — December 18, 2008 @ 12:59 am - December 18, 2008
Help me out here, TP. I’ll be damned if I can find an example of GP “cheerleading” liberals and the BJ “administration”. Can you cite some specific examples, please?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 18, 2008 @ 2:37 am - December 18, 2008
Yes, like that schoolyard taunt reveals you’re a typical ignorant Obama supporter who doesn’t know that Democrats have controlled congress for the past TWO YEARS.
The economy was growing robustly when Republicans handed it over to your ilk and continued growing until December of last year, a full year into Democrat rule, and the only “neglect” as Bill Clinton admitted was the Democrats utter refusal to reform their corrupt cash-cow, Fannie Mae, and their insistence on blocking every attempt Republicans made to reform it (over 30 attempts since 2001). Except of course it wasn’t neglect, it was intentional corruption.
Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2008 @ 4:43 am - December 18, 2008
Pot-Kettle, Kettle – Pot.
Comment by V the K — December 18, 2008 @ 5:10 am - December 18, 2008
[...] Gay Obamaniacs just got punk’d [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Obamaniacs Punk’d, Part II — December 18, 2008 @ 7:03 am - December 18, 2008
[...] Gay Joe, Gay Obamaniacs just got punk’d, Gay [...]
Pingback by Your Progressive is a Regressive. You’ve been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. « — December 18, 2008 @ 7:13 am - December 18, 2008
I’m not a hopeandchange liberal, but I voted for Obama as (to put is positively) the better of two choices. This choice is a big disappointment, and I do question his judgment and ability as a leader. I’ll still give him a chance as president, and credit many of his cabinet and top level appts. But he lost a lot of points with his selection of Warren for delivering the inaugural invocation.
Torrentprime, I get what you’re saying about Obama’s actions, legislation he pushes for, etc., being more important than a ceremony. But this does not speak well for how Obama will govern when he becomes president. Besides that, Warren has no business delivering the inaugural invocation.
Comment by Pat — December 18, 2008 @ 7:33 am - December 18, 2008
[...] Gay Obamaniacs Just Got Punk’d. More on that [...]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » HE HAS NOT YET BEGUN TO WANK: Atrios makes Barack Obama “Wanker of the Day” over the Rick Warren de… — December 18, 2008 @ 10:10 am - December 18, 2008
Where does the shock and surprise come from? Pres. Elect Obama repeatedly said during the campaign that he opposed gay marriage on religious grounds. The infamous Rev Wright headed an openly antigay church. Obama’s supporters in California voted down gay marriage. Just wait until Obama greatly expands the war in Afganistan and invades Pakistan, as he has repeatedly promised. Nixon-Cambodia anyone? Didn’t anyone listen to this guy? Was it all projection?
Comment by Bob Sykes — December 18, 2008 @ 10:42 am - December 18, 2008
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You actually believed a politician??? For all the crap that is spewed out about “tolerance”- you aren’t! You really mean, Only Those that Agree with ME!!! Take your medicine and rethink your tolerance crap position. Obama could have shown real balls and asked jerry falwell.
Comment by totalabandon — December 18, 2008 @ 10:50 am - December 18, 2008
Wait, Leah, what has Rick Warren done for gays?
He supports eliminationist hate preachers in Africa who wish keep keep homosexuality illegal.
Do you know what “eliminationist” means, Leah?
Also, your “I doubt” statement about Trinity might work in conservative circles where no one actually checks sources, but Trinity was and is a welcoming congregation for LGBT Christians. Wright has his flaws, obviously, but he came to Jesus on the gay issue.
Comment by Evan — December 18, 2008 @ 12:08 pm - December 18, 2008
Can someone tell me when Obama sad h supported gay marriage?
He never did.
Gay marriage civil rights law cannot be reconciled in our culture. Obama will never be in favor of gay marriage for that reason alone.
Comment by Dan — December 18, 2008 @ 11:18 am - December 18, 2008
A little perspective:
1. Being punk’d occasionally by a party that’s otherwise halfway decent, if flawed on gay issues.
OR
2. Being raped repeatedly by a party while childishly wishing that MAYBE ONE DAY Daddy will stop beating me?
The lack of self-awareness on this blog is stunning.
Comment by Evan — December 18, 2008 @ 11:36 am - December 18, 2008
Reading the comments at other sites about this is all the proof you need that the Left has no monopoly on inclusion , tolerance, grace, peace….
People who march for peace: remember, peace means accepting the full participation and existence of people you disagree with. If you wanted peace in Iraq, back in 2003, that means shaking the hand of Saddam, and trading with him.
Peace in our time in our nation, means accepting the existence of people who may not believe as you do. Peace mean coexistence.
If the left moves that someone other than Warren give the prayer… who? Can you find a Christian that opposed Prop ? Of course. And wouldn’t that mean offending those who oppose the re-definition of marriage? No? They wouldn’t be offended? Of course they wouldn’t. If a pro-redefinition preacher were to pray, there would be no outrage. What does that mean… perhaps that in a nation in which Christians are expected to remain quiet about their beliefs in the workplace, in Academia, in so many places, perhaps it is they who have learned to be tolerant. Perhaps the Left should learn tolerance and love from them.
Comment by Dan McComb — December 18, 2008 @ 11:42 am - December 18, 2008
AGJ, just watched the video with Pastor Warren, I find myself agreeing with him to a great extent. The difference is that if the people of CA or any other state actually voted for Gay marriage – I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
But it is obvious to me that Pastor Warren has done so much more in his life for gays than Reverend Wright ever did. I doubt there was any outreach to help gays in need at Trinity. I’m so all those gay lefties screaming bloody murder now would have been thrilled to have Wright give the invocation.
Comment by Leah — December 18, 2008 @ 11:53 am - December 18, 2008
I have to say that Warren’s response in that video made a lot of sense. The reasoning actually sounds like the way Obama’s own mind works. I like Obama more after seeing that video, because it’s consistent with what he’s said, rather than with what people “think” he said (with a nod and a wink).
Comment by cenzo — December 18, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - December 18, 2008
#5 Perhaps, this will begin something of an awakening among those rabidly Dem gays – that they have just been used for years as a political tool. There seems to be absolutely no self awareness or political awareness among these folks.
o/ Dem gays, dem gays, dem ma-ad gays! /o
Comment by docweasel — December 18, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - December 18, 2008
I find it humorous that bloggers and commenters around the web think this kind of action will wake the Gay community up that they are being used by the Democratic party.
Blacks have been used by the Democratic party for four decades… and they still vote as a block for the
assesdonkeys.Comment by Tom — December 18, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - December 18, 2008
So, Bill Clinton gave us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act. HomophObama selects an anti-gay minister for his inauguration. Tell me again why gay people should support the Demokratische Partei?
Comment by Patrick — December 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm - December 18, 2008
Why didn’t gay people look at what the democrat party has done for the black population to see how democrats treat those that vote monolithic for them.
Â
Gays already vote overwhelmingly for democrats, why should democrats do anything to earn their vote.
Comment by Left Turn — December 18, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - December 18, 2008
So no Gay marriage, AND higher taxes! Way to go, Gay Left!
Comment by Bilwick1 — December 18, 2008 @ 2:40 pm - December 18, 2008
You Obamatrons had a great time excluding people for The One. Now it’s your turn one by one. His supporters brought you Prop 8. Now you pro choicer girls who were busy eating from his hand will be next. You were all stupid. You fell for it. You probably even donated to it. Fools, all of you. The democrats have been playing you for decades and nothing changed. Now the undoing of what little progress was made is on your heads. Too bad your stupidity will take innocent people who knew what a fraud he was down with you.
No He Won’t!
Comment by Gerry — December 18, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - December 18, 2008
#15: You are a monster for trying to draw parallels between child abuse and political affiliation.
I knew as early as the Donnie McClurkin fiasco that HomophObama was as bad for gays as he would be for, well, everyone else in this country.
Comment by Attmay — December 18, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - December 18, 2008
Well at least it payed off for the Blacks, they just got a Black president.
Comment by Leah — December 18, 2008 @ 4:38 pm - December 18, 2008
don’t know how to do the ping back thing. . .or the duplicate thingy
but after giving some more thought. . .
I find it quite amusing that BHO selected ‘the man behind the curtain’ for now lots of folk will be paying a tad bit more attention to Brother Warren, as he continues to build his faith fortresses(4th largest church in america-wikipedia). And, with Warren as the BHO pick, Prop 8 hit the radar again on a national level.
Bringing folk together is what BHO is all about, and sometimes that is like inviting the relatives from the distant side of the family to the wedding, christining (sp), bar mitzvah, etc. that no one really wants to invite or even see. But after they all get together, well, sometimes more fireworks.
I have only seen Brother Warren in two video clips, like his charisma and admire him not only as a very effective spokesperson, but for his ability to keep his ‘cool’.
But all this aside, before true conversations and dialogues to develop, folk must be around the table. This is OHB’s hope and tactic for change.
But then again The Godfather once said, ‘Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.’
Comment by rusty — December 18, 2008 @ 4:43 pm - December 18, 2008
“Stabbed in the back by the leader of your own party.
Now you know how conservatives feel about McCain.”
Er… Obama didn’t suddenly stab them in the back. Obama has ALWAYS opposed gay marriage, and has ALWAYS been ambivalent about gay rights in general. Whether this is due to personal conviction or political expediency is anyone’s guess. I can’t quite understand why anyone would ever think otherwise, unless all they saw was the “D – IL” after his name.
This is simply a case of people seeing what they wanted to see and ignoring the facts right in front of their face, to the point of being delusional.
Comment by Tim — December 18, 2008 @ 7:00 pm - December 18, 2008
Well, Mr. Warren certainly loses me when he compares a gay couple getting married to an incestuous marriage or the classic straw man–the pederastic relationship. However unlike Dobson, Falwell and others Warren said he supports things like hospital visitation rights and domestic partner benefits. Falwell wouldn’t even eat a meal with Rev. Mel White and his group when he went to Liberty University for a bridge building summit. There is a world of difference between the two. Obama is also having the benediction being given by a pro-gay reverend at the same ceremony. I wouldn’t count Obama out on gay issues yet, although that should probably take a back seat to the financial issues et cetera. On the gay issues which was the worse candidate though? The one who has actively supported ENDA, civil unions, expanding hate crimes to protect sexual orientation or the one who actively fought all of those things and even campaigned for a state level marriage amendment that was so draconian that it failed to pass in the red state of Arizona?
I think the gay fringe got their panties in a wad over nothing. I like when the party fringes get their panties in a wad (Democrat or Republican). It usually means the members are doing something that isn’t ideologically pure. More often than not that’s a good thing.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — December 18, 2008 @ 9:55 pm - December 18, 2008
Don’t you have to do something useful to earn points in the first place?
Occasionally?
This would be the same party who promissed to carry out “the will of the poeple”, then gave Americans the finger when we told them that we wanted more domestic oil production. This would be the same party that promissed to erradicate “corruption” in DC and “drain the swamp”. We have seen the swamp and it’s the liberal left. This would be the same party that promissed it would make DC more transparent. Meanwhile, Bush did more for transparency that the liberals.
This would be the same party who punk’d America with: the Valerie Wilson kerfuffle, claims of “torture”, repeatedly taking the side of terrorists, “Bush lied!”, “quagmire!”, “worst economy ever!”, “worst president ever!”, “General Betray-us!”, Katrina, “Change!”, “Hope!”, Club Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, “650,000 dead Iraqis” and on and on and on and on to infinity.
The liberal left is, at the very best, a huge punk’d skit and too damn many Americans just laugh it off. One would think folks would be sick and tired of the steady diet of bullshit fed to us by the liberal left.
How many more beatings will gays have to take from liberals before they get fed up? As I’ve said before, back in my EMS days, we’d go out on the “domestic” calls. We’d encounter a woman who’d been beaten black and blue. We tried to offer help and suggested she leave, but she’d always say “but he loves me!”.
Gays always vote Dem, get their asses kicked by them, the libs will tell them “I love you and I need you, baby” and the gays will always stick with them. The gays are frosted by the selection of Warren, but Comrade Obama will nominate a gay here or there for NavSec or some such, the gays will get all moist and start fighting each other over who has the best chances of sucking Comrade O’s dick.
And so it goes.
The lack of honesty and/or a good grasp of reality on your part is fucking pathetic.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2008 @ 1:22 am - December 19, 2008
How many more beatings will gays have to take from liberals before they get fed up?
I think for most people, it’s a choice between being slapped around or being beaten to a pulp. Some people do choose being beaten to a pulp.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2008 @ 7:31 am - December 19, 2008
In the video Mr. Warren said he doesn’t have a problem with domestic partnerships, hospital visitation rights et cetera when asked directly. That already puts him ahead of Dobson, Falwell and other religious right leaders. Mr. Warren definitely loses points when he starts trying to equate being gay with incest or pedophilia, but then again all the religious right leaders do that and nary a word is brought up about that when the GOP rolls these guys out for their public events. At least Mr. Warren is willing to eat with gay people in public and private, unlike Mr. Falwell who literally refused to serve food to Rev. Mel White and his crew when they visited him at Liberty University because he thought that “breaking bread” with unrepentant gay people was unacceptable.
Rick Warren is far from perfect on gay issues, but if Obama’s goal is to build bridges this is a way to do it. No one here seems to be mentioning the pro-gay pastor that is giving the benediction later in the speech. That doesn’t fit the whole “Obama doesn’t like gays” line, so I get that. In the last election though you had one candidate that actively supported ENDA, extending hate crimes benefits to cover sexual orientation and announced his support for civil unions. You had another candidate who actively fought all of those and even actively campaigned against a state level constitutional marriage amendment that was so draconian it couldn’t even pass in the red state of Arizona. How is Obama supposedly worse on gay issues than that?
I think the fringe left has got their panties in a wad over nothing. Obama is reaching across the isle and not pulling in a Dobson or Hagee, he’s pulling a far more mild right wing preacher who also invited Obama to speak despite disagreeing with him on social issues. I’d prefer he didn’t select him, but it’s really a tempest in a teapot. Whenever the fringe gets excited like this it’s usually because the political leader isn’t acting ideologically pure enough (that goes for Democrats and Republicans). That’s usually a good thing as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — December 19, 2008 @ 7:45 am - December 19, 2008
“Gays always vote Dem, get their asses kicked by them, the libs will tell them “I love you and I need you, baby†and the gays will always stick with them.”
Moving your analogy along, gays should stop being in a relationship with the husband that beats them in private (Democrats) to go to a new one that beats them in public and in private (Republicans)?
Comment by Mr. Moderate — December 19, 2008 @ 7:51 am - December 19, 2008
No one here seems to know that Obama also selected a pro-gay pastor to give the benediction at the same ceremony. Besides, this is Obama inviting one of the less caustic religious right figures to help build bridges. Which party is the religious right in bed with? And you guys are crowing about him inviting one of them to give a speech, while you have an army of them in your own midst and just sit there and grin and bear it when they are trotted out again and again.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — December 19, 2008 @ 7:54 am - December 19, 2008
No one here seems to know that Obama also selected a pro-gay pastor to give the benediction at the same ceremony.
I was aware of that, and that’s a positive. But it doesn’t erase Obama’s poor judgment in selecting Warren. Perhaps Obama should invite an anti-Black racist to deliver the invocation and a pro-Black person to deliver the benediction instead.
And you guys are crowing about him inviting one of them to give a speech,
What are you going to do? It’s the opposition, and they saw Obama make a bonehead move.
while you have an army of them in your own midst and just sit there and grin and bear it when they are trotted out again and again.
Misery loves company.
Comment by Pat — December 19, 2008 @ 11:30 am - December 19, 2008
I never got this. Gay folks overwhelmingly supported Obama even though there was zero difference between him and McCain on the gay issues, and in fact, McCain would have been more likely to try to “reach across the aisle” on the issue to show how bipartisan he was.
Absent that, gays just basically voted for higher taxes. (Do the math. No dual-filing benefit from marriage, plus six figure income, equals YOU’RE “THE RICH” THAT DEMS WILL BE SAYIGN DON’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.)
The Dems must really get a laugh out of you suckers.
Comment by Some Guy — December 19, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - December 19, 2008
Moving your analogy along, gays should stop being in a relationship with the husband that beats them in private (Democrats) to go to a new one that beats them in public and in private (Republicans)?
LOL…and once again, the gay left tries to spin away their support and endorsement of the abusive Democrat Party by making their usual “Republicans are running concentration camps” arguments.
Why do gay Democrats lie so much about Republicans? Is it because they cannot deal with their own party’s abuse of them, so they have to make Republicans look worse to explain why they support abusive Democrats?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 1:47 pm - December 19, 2008
Gay Obamabots were among the MOST deluded during the election and now they FINALLY see what they were voting for.
Comment by Mark — December 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm - December 19, 2008
“LOL…and once again, the gay left tries to spin away their support and endorsement of the abusive Democrat Party by making their usual “Republicans are running concentration camps†arguments.”
Umm, who brought up concentration camps. I’m simply pointing out that the GOP is quite vocally against pro-gay positions, they even have a whole Orwellian term for their positions against gay issues; they are “pro-family.” So equating inviting Rick Warren, who is a member of the GOP and their most anti-gay wing of the party to boot, the same as having an abuse husband is interesting compared to the actions of the party that brings forward these constitutional amendments against not only gay marriage but also civil unions and rights that approximate marriage at both the state and federal level.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — December 19, 2008 @ 6:29 pm - December 19, 2008
Filter, GPW.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2008 @ 8:45 pm - December 19, 2008
To the continued lame claims that those who voted for Obama were fooled: the choices were to vote for someone who we knew were lying when they claimed they supported us or those we knew were lying when they said they don’t judge us but with every word and action (including the party platform) do exactly that. A choice between those who are against SSM but support civil unions, and those who are against SSM and civil unions. A choice between a party that supports us publicly but is either indifferent or actually acts against us in reality or a party that includes anti-gay statements and actively works against us. I totally agree that gay issues are not all that we should vote on, everything must be weighed, BUT on those issues it was not a matter of being fooled but of choosing which liar we thought was less dangerous. I suppose it’s comforting for you to deny that we made an informed choice and claim we got fooled since the former would mean you would have to admit that there is validity in our concerns about your party and candidates.
Comment by a different Dave — December 22, 2008 @ 9:44 am - December 22, 2008
[adDavetoEnglishFilter]Those who were voting for Obama weren’t fooled, we know he loves us, this kick in the ribs is just for our own good. We willingly embrace people lying to us, rather than accepting that there are two parties and even if one party is honest enough to stick by their words and deeds, we hope that the ones that keep sayng “Stick with me honey, I’ll love you in the morning.” will start loving us. That the other party says “you can scream until your face is blue, but you have to act like responcible adults to sit at the table” infringes on my freedom to act like a child and scream when I don’t get what I want. At least the Democrat party loves me, he said he won’t hit as hard this time.[/adDavetoEnglishFilter]
Comment by The Livewire — December 22, 2008 @ 2:41 pm - December 22, 2008
livewire, you have surpassed your previous record of giving asinine “translations” of what I said. Go for the gold livewire, I’m sure that some on here think you’re just wonderful. Those that can’t read that is. The fact that you could in any seriousness propose that your masterpiece has ANY connection with what I actually said is really quite sad. And here I once thought you were rational. I’ll not waste anytime correcting your errors since that will just lead to another juvenile “translation” and I don’t want to tire you.
Comment by a different Dave — December 22, 2008 @ 8:55 pm - December 22, 2008
#45
“even if one party is honest enough to stick by their words and deeds”
the Nazi party did that, are you suggesting then that they should get my vote out of respect for that? And no I’m not comparing Republicans to Nazis, just foolishly attempting to show you the idiocy of your statement. Most of what you said is actually a perfect description of the mindset of a “gay conservative”. The sentence about screaming blah blah blah isn’t applicable because y’all just bend over and beg for it.
Oops guess I decided to waste my time.
Comment by a different Dave — December 22, 2008 @ 9:04 pm - December 22, 2008