Friday, December 19, 2008

On Warren

You know, I have to say a little something about the Rick Warren thing. I didn't think Obama was a particularly good choice for the Democrats, although of course I'm pleased that he won the election, but I think the "progressives" who made out he was some messiah of the left now need to stfu and probably should apologise to the rest of us for boosting him.

Having Warren speak is a huge fuck you to the left, and of course to gays. It's no use Obama saying he's an advocate of gay rights, blah blah, and we must embrace those who disagree with us. What he is doing is sending out the message that there will be no gay marriage on his watch, and I'm not sure what the political calculation is there.

And I don't understand why we have to embrace the people who disagree with us. For the past eight years, they've been fucking the place up. They didn't embrace anyone or anything that they don't like, and they sure as shit aren't going to start.

As others have noted, it seems that Obama has no problem reaching out and hugging up to homophobes, but is not having anyone from the Klan at his inauguration.. I'm going to take a stab at why: he simply doesn't think that gays or liberals form a constituency he has to please; but to some extent blacks and conservatives are. I suppose the message to blacks is "I agree with you that God thinks gays should not be our equals" and to conservatives "I'm not really all that liberal, so you should not try to block the (limited) legislation I plan for the next few years". He's not reaching out to racists because they wouldn't support him anyway, no matter what.

I say fuck the people who disagree with us. In Obama's shoes, I would be flooding the place with new measures, legislation, whatever. I'd force the Republicans to block measure after measure that helps ordinary people. I certainly wouldn't be consulting with them. Some of them deserve jail, not reward, after all.

2 Comments:

At 2:57 pm, Blogger Miz UV said...

Yes. I don't see Warren as "helping civil discourse" when he compares abortion to the Holocaust. But I never saw Obama the way his avid supporters did -- Hillary would not have chosen Warren after all -- and Obama's embrace of gay rights has always been tepid at best ("Uh, I believe marriage is one man/one woman, but vote no on eight cuz amendments shouldn't take rights away.") This is "change," okay.

But I don't see why we should have prayers and blessings and religious crap at a governmental thingie in the first place.

 
At 3:10 pm, Blogger $Zero said...

I think it's because racism is a lot easier to have open contempt towards than homophobism by virtue of the ease of the arguments one can make to condemn racism as inhuman and exceedingly petty and a contradiction of all common moral sense and decency.

Gayness, OTOH, is not "normal", so homophobic discrimination tends to cross over most other boundries of race and gender and religiosity and whatnot.

Gays are essentially asking the general population to approve of their "weirdness", which is a much tougher sell, activism-wise.

Besides which, what they're asking for in equal rights seems to already be there for the most part.

What isn't can easily be challenged in court.

But in a practical sense, do you really think that someone's best friend would not be permitted to be at the bedside of their pal if hospitalized?

Of course not.

Gays simply suffer the same social stigma that people who color their hair bright orange do. Or fans of Yoko Ono.

IMO, anyway.

Those who would do physical violence to people who sport bright orange hair are complete shits anyway and there's not much more you can do to them for their hateful stupidity than is already in place.

The financial benefits of marriage?

Fuck it. Form a corporation or a partnership or whatever. Create a legal agreement between the consenting parties and most of the "ownership"/legal rights problems are solved, I would think.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home