RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. Um, GPW, weren’t you saying a few threads down that it was NOT homophobic for Scalia to suggest that homosexual conduct is reprehensible? And, mind you, not “reprehensible” in the way that picking your nose and eating the boogers is reprehensible, or that shoplifting is reprehensible, or that telling racist jokes is reprehensible, or that having multiple babies out of wedlock with the expectation that taxpayers will subsidize your childcare expenses is reprehensible. No, with a vast universe of reprehensibility to choose from, Scalia had to go and compare homosexual conduct with… what was it again? Oh, yeah — murder and cruelty to animals.

    Now, this doesn’t necessarily prove that Scalia is homophobic — but I don’t see how you can confidently declare he’s not a homophobe, and then turn around and say that Bishop Jakes statement “homosexuality is brokenness,” on the other hand, does indicate animosity towards gay people.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 27, 2009 @ 3:20 am - March 27, 2009

  2. ^^ +1

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 8:37 am - March 27, 2009

  3. “Bishop” TD Jakes is not even a real bishop, as his church is non-denominational, and therefore has no hierarchy. I was around him several times when I worked on the Dr. Phil Show last year and he came across more of a preacher Dr Phil than an actual religious scholar or any other kind of profession. The Dr Phil Show tried to spin him off into a clone of their show. I don’t think Jakes takes religion too seriously, or he’d respect that you earn the title of bishop and not just label yourself one. There’s also the fact that the guy rolls on 20′s while preaching humility.

    Odd fellow.

    Comment by Jordan — March 27, 2009 @ 8:42 am - March 27, 2009

  4. The point, Throbert, is that by left-wing standards, what Bishop Jakes said is greater than or equal to the remarks of Scalia and Santorum. GPW is hitting the left on its notorious double-standard, hence “it’s pretty clear gay activists would find these associations troubling if a Republican had them.”

    It brings into debate whether the left is sincere about its opposition what they call “hate speech,” or whether “hate speech” is just an opportunistic construct that they use to gain political points.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 9:40 am - March 27, 2009

  5. As for T D Jakes and his statement that “he would not hire a sexually active gay person”….his son was arrested in Dallas in early January for “exposing himself in front of an undercover Dallas police vice detective at Kiest Park” (second quote from Dallas Morning News web site). Would he hire his own son? Just askin’……

    Comment by FortWorthGuy — March 27, 2009 @ 9:51 am - March 27, 2009

  6. There’s a couple of reasons why Scalia gets more scrutiny. One reason, of course, is the party hypocrisy angle as suggested. The other could be that these pastors aren’t on the Supreme Court making decisions that could affect gay rights. Whether or not Obama listens to these pastors when it comes to their anti-gay bigotry, I don’t know.

    But your point is well taken, Dan. Obama’s association with these bigots does deserve scrutiny.

    Comment by Pat — March 27, 2009 @ 9:59 am - March 27, 2009

  7. T.D. Jakes believes in “oneness” theology which is a denial of the Trinity and is not unlike, oh, I don’t know, Islam?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — March 27, 2009 @ 10:07 am - March 27, 2009

  8. #3 – Exactly, V. Which is why the dense lower-case-trolls don’t get it.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 10:22 am - March 27, 2009

  9. …and all except Otis Moss, Jr. are opposed to equal rights for homosexuals.

    I’m against same-sex marriage. Considering so many (including bloggers, pastors, and homosexuals) consider same-sex marriage a ‘right’ that would, when enacted, bring greater ‘equality’ to homosexuality and heterosexuality, then I too am against ‘equal rights for homosexuals.’ From the implications of much of what has been written here, I guess that makes me anti-gay as well.

    A good refutation of a supposed equality if not a defense of the less savory statements by some of these pastors is your blog entry How Did “Equality” Become Watchword of Gay Movement? Good question.

    Now, I don’t believe in guilt by association…

    Sure you do and it’s everywhere around us. See your blog entry Is Barney Frank Bad for Gays? (next page) in which you describe both a gay and Jewish guilt-by-association via Frank and Madoff, respectively.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 27, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 27, 2009

  10. After months of being bashed on a local newspaper board as a “right-wing, wacko, self-hating gay man”, it is nice to be among birds of a feather.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — March 27, 2009 @ 11:16 am - March 27, 2009

  11. As I read Dan’s post, it is about the taint of hypocrisy.

    I wonder if those who give us grief for supporting a political party which includes such social conservatives will challenge the president for voluntarily associating with such preachers. And I wonder if the national gay groups, ever so eager to lambaste Republicans for such associations, will call the president on this.

    Along come the Obamanauts to try to tar Dan with hypocrisy for questioning how thoroughly the Obamanauts have been trapped in the rapture. If the gay “equality” gang can’t pause to consider this curious part of the Messiah’s council, then they are really ready to fall on their swords for the Messiah. Pity.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 11:28 am - March 27, 2009

  12. #10 – Welcome, TnnsNE1!

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - March 27, 2009

  13. #0 – The Dear Teleprompter has *five* people designated just to attend to his ‘spiritual’ needs?

    I can’t fathom that. I gotta say, though, it fits my mental picture of Obama as basically an emotional infant who expects to charm people, be attended on and get his way at every turn.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - March 27, 2009

  14. I think the only thing Obama really worships is himself. The “spiritual advisers” are just part of the razzle-dazzle.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - March 27, 2009

  15. Now, I don’t believe in guilt by association, but it’s pretty clear gay activists would find these associations troubling if a Republican had them.

    Wise sage, Mr. Blatt. Wise.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 27, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - March 27, 2009

  16. wait, i thought you guys said obama was a muslim?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - March 27, 2009

  17. 16 – No, boob, YOU SAID that we said Obama was a Muslim.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - March 27, 2009

  18. “In the Hawkeye Poll, 39 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of independents did not know Obama’s religion, compared to less than one-quarter of Democrats. Likewise, almost 70 percent of Democrats correctly identified him as Christian, compared just 46.3 percent of Republicans and 57.5 percent of independents.

    “That’s a difference of over 20 percentage points between Republicans and Democrats on perceptions of Obama’s Christian religion,” said Hawkeye Poll Co-Director Caroline Tolbert, associate professor of political science at the UI. “Media coverage or online information sources linking Obama to the Muslim religion may be responsible for the misinformation.””


    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - March 27, 2009

  19. bob,

    What is Obama’s denomination?

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - March 27, 2009

  20. bob,

    Here is the answer: He votes “present.” The denomination is useful generic.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - March 27, 2009

  21. bob,

    You should say: “Same with Reagan.”

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - March 27, 2009

  22. bob,

    Reagan never had any confused Muslim entry on his school records.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - March 27, 2009

  23. I was fairly certain that at some point Obama would distance himself from the question of religion and move more toward the “religion of social justice” because when you read his pre-State Senate campaign interviews with ChiPress, he comes off as someone who isn’t really even Christian.

    For instance, he said he didn’t think there was really a Heaven or a Hell. His line was, I’m paraphasing, heaven is found on Earth in what we make of our world and the way we care for those around us.

    He said he didn’t know if God existed but he thought, in that quaint way that many avoid looking faithful, if God does exist, we’re in trouble with Him if we say He doesn’t, but if He doesn’t exist and we say He does, no harm, no foul. So he was going to say that God exists because it was the safest bet… not because of faith. The safest bet as man fashions it.

    Finally, when the reporter asked him about what’s religion’s role in his life, Obama deflected into talking about the need to help the poor, find housing for the homeless (don’t get me started on that one) to feed the hungry and visit the sick, the infirmed and those in prison. All those are good things to be sure… but they ain’t worship, they are public service.

    Mind you, he didn’t say that was the role of religion in his life… he talked about “some people”, “others hold”. He never answered what it is in his life. So I wonder, are the homophobic revs there for social cocktails or is it something else –like what HowieDean advised in 2005: we can’t let the GOP dominate the God issues. Religion is our issue too.

    I always got the sense that he attended Trinity because it was more social than faith. I’m not sure most church-going Christians who might look at a litany of Obama’s thoughts (without noting who said what) about religion would find him to be faithful or Christian, even tho’ he went through the baptismal/saving programs. I think it was more social than faith.

    Muslims, on the other hand, don’t mess around with faith and uncertainties that Obama raised. I am positive he could never last as a Muslim… the rigors of worship would be far too much for him to squish around.

    So are the revs there as window dressings ala SlickWilly. Maybe they are there because of social obligations. Maybe they are there because if some moral impropriety occurs while Obama in on the clock, the revs’ prescence now buys him some chits to get out of jail with the revs?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - March 27, 2009

  24. #22 – He also never spoke about his “Muslim faith” on ABC and had to have George Stephanopoulos gently correct him with “you mean CHRISTIAN faith, right?”

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - March 27, 2009

  25. Let’s all not forget about the 20-odd years he spent in Jeremiah Wright’s “church” absorbing all of that black liberation theology nonsense.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - March 27, 2009

  26. I call bullshit. About a year ago when I said that the right wing would have had Clinton’s head on a platter if he had taken us to war based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, you said you could not argue in hypotheticals. Now you are arguing with just the same tactic.

    No, I don’t like that Obama associates with these pastors and I posted (on another forum) extensively about that just a year ago. He’s still far better on gay issues than McCain or Bush so I don’t really know what the point is except that you will look for any argument to attack a Democrat for not being perfect on gay issues (and God knows most of them aren’t) while excuses Republicans for being openly hostile to gays.

    Comment by Houndentenor — March 27, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - March 27, 2009

  27. How is he better Houndtenor?

    No seriously I want to hear this.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 27, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - March 27, 2009

  28. If McCain Or Bush have any thing close to this I would like to see it. But it also depends on what your definition of “good on gay issues” means.

    Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois:
    Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Barack Obama in the United States Senate:
    Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.

    Barack Obama on Hate Crimes:
    From the White House Website: President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.

    Employment Non-Discrimination:
    From President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military:
    From the White House Website: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

    Gay & Lesbian Adoption:
    President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

    Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
    Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
    Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

    He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

    From the White House Web site: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - March 27, 2009

  29. i’m not happy about these associations. i’m not afraid to say that. but if you want my personal opinion (you probably don’t, but oh well) i’m not too concerned for these reasons:

    1) you can’t get elected in this country if you’re not christian, and outwardly so. there aren’t many mainstream christian figures out there who aren’t anti-gay, so i’m not sure one can easily get around this.
    2) i don’t think obama is taking advice on gay issues from these people.
    3) i honestly don’t think obama is a terribly religious person. yes, he has to say he’s found jesus, blah blah blah, but that’s just b/c you can’t get elected if you don’t say that. is that pandering? of course. but i find more fault in an electorate that requires our national politicians to be devout christians than in the politician who wants to serve his country and therefore exaggerates his faith.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 27, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - March 27, 2009

  30. Obama on Gay issues:
    -Supports federally recognized civil unions and leaves it to the states to recognize marraige.
    -Supports legislation to end discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc.
    -Supports gays the liberty to adopt.
    -Supports and end to the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
    -As an Illinois senator, he supported, and I think sponsored discrimination legislation.
    - Human Rights Campaign rated him a 90% in there questionaire.

    Would love to see a Bush/McCain comparison. This much I know:
    -Both support the ban on gays in the military.
    -Both do not support civil unions.
    -The Bush’s state department recognized same sex partners of foreign dignitaries and staff visiting this country.
    -Bush also signed the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) making it manditory to business’ to roll over retirement benefits to same sex partners in the event of death.
    I dont know if Bush/McCain filled out the HRC questionaire. And do not recall their official policies on gay adoption, discrimination, etc.

    It also depends on what your definition of “better on gay issues” is I suppose.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 27, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - March 27, 2009

  31. #28: Chuck in Del, all that your “Obama on gay issues” list highlights is the fact that Obama now holds the most powerful position on the globe, he has a near-super-majority in Congress that would grant him the power of invisibility if he asked them to, and an army of media heavy-weights to vigilantly defend every policy he implements and every syllable that passes through his lips, yet…for some reason, he has taken absolutely no action on any of the items on the list of things he allegedly “supports” (in fact, he put off taking any action on DADT until 2010 at the earliest within hours after being elected).

    I don’t know about you, but these facts have certainly helped me figure out what the definition of “better on gay issues” is.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 12:54 am - March 28, 2009

  32. #18: bob’s comment containing the detailed polling information concerning the voters’ knowledge of Obama’s religious beliefs made me realize just how ridiculous it is to even discuss religion in connection with him. It’s all such a silly, pointless, insincere exercise. So, Chairman Zero needs FIVE different religious leaders to tend to his “spiritual needs?” Isn’t it interesting that all five of them are SELECTED and then rolled out as though Obama is staffing a cabinet post? Only Obama would approach his own relationship with the Almighty by creating yet another bureaucracy. Do they each have a staff and get a budget? I’m sure they’ve all been carefully vetted to confirm that none of them are tax cheats. Are we supposed to believe that this is some crack-hallelujah-team Obama is going to pray with during the darkest hours of his presidency? Maybe in a couple of days bob can update us on the latest polling information related to Obama’s spiritual appointees? This quote from the NYT article, “Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five” says it all:

    “None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically.”

    That’s right. Don’t worry folks! The pastors are a bit on the conservative side because, well…they’ve got these silly beliefs of theirs, BUT they aren’t part of that horrible “religious right!” The article actually assures the reader that none of them are “affiliated” with the “religious right.” (Please note that both “r”s are lowercase.) This is a news article in the politics section of the NYT website (NOT the op-ed section). This woman is REPORTING that none of them are “affiliated” with a group that isn’t even an actual group. Just curious, how exactly does one become “affiliated” with a group that doesn’t exist? I guess the reporter just decides for herself and puts it in the article (same as always at the NYT).

    This is just another gross, trashy, politically-obsessed charade from the Obama Administration. It has nothing to do with religion, unless you count politics as a religion (which is, afterall, the ONLY thing Obama truly believes in). Sickening. As always.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 4:53 am - March 28, 2009

  33. Thank you Chuck. I’d have to look up then-Senator-Obama’s voting record.

    28.Obama on Gay issues:
    -Supports federally recognized civil unions and leaves it to the states to recognize marraige.

    Amusingly, as far as I’m concerned this is the conservative position. I do seem to recall he either a) supported 8 or b) punted, wich would undermine this.

    -Supports legislation to end discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc.

    This is always an iffy issue. If you can’t be fired because you’re gay/black/disabled, can I be fired because I’m straight/white/enabled? It seems a silly question now… Also, I’m never sure on the housing thing. Some apartments put limits in alcohol, number of tennants etc. Where do you draw the line limiting how people cannot use their private property.

    -Supports gays the liberty to adopt.

    To be honest, I forgot this was still an issue. Better the munchkin have two mommies than none. Then again better the black baby have two white parents than no parents, but Family Services has been reluctant to accept that too. *sigh* a long way to go on both sides I fear.

    -Supports and end to the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

    I’m going to call BS on this. “End DADT” became “Let me get back to you on that, in a few years” So I’ll believe this when the words match the rhetoric.

    -As an Illinois senator, he supported, and I think sponsored discrimination legislation.

    Again, I’ll have to look, but discrimination is part of the right of association, so again, it’s difficult place.

    -Both support the ban on gays in the military.
    I thought it was ‘defer to the military leadership’.

    -Both do not support civil unions.
    Well Cheney did argue gay marriage was a States Rights issue. Do you have a cite for the ‘against civil unions?’

    -The Bush’s state department recognized same sex partners of foreign dignitaries and staff visiting this country.
    Good for them. Seriously, we have to strike a line on what to tolerate and what to not (same sex couples, yes. Beheading your wife, no)

    -Bush also signed the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) making it manditory to business’ to roll over retirement benefits to same sex partners in the event of death.
    Again, good thing, one less bit of paperwork.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 9:19 am - March 28, 2009

  34. Ack I cut one line too many. Before the ‘Both’ stick in ‘Bush/Cheney.

    Again, thanks for the info.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 9:20 am - March 28, 2009

  35. Bush takes the states rights approach to civil unions.

    Then, as predicted, the conservative christian fundamentalist called Jihad on him:

    “Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute,

    “Here’s the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name,” said Randy Thomasson, executive directo Campaign for California Families. “Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law.”

    So go get’em GayCons convince those people civil unions is the conservative thing to do and we will be home free. Good luck. I’ll wait here.

    Then after your state gets civil unions, you run smack dab into the full faith recognition issue. So I have hospital visitation in Delaware, but travel to South Carolina? Not so much.

    Once again, it all depends on your definition of good on gay issues.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — March 28, 2009 @ 11:39 am - March 28, 2009

  36. Thanks for the link Chuck.

    And yes, I know the nature of the arguements of the FF&C clause. It’s already being used/attacked/exploited in some cases, using Mass marriages as a stepping stone. That is, in part, the argument behind both the national DOMA, and a marriage ammendment, to nip it in the bud. I call it the ‘Dred Scott’ approach, based on the tactic.

    I don’t know a practical solution though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 1:02 pm - March 28, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.187 Powered by Wordpress