Melissa Etheridge DUPED

Rick Warren represents a church that denies gays have the right to exist as they are.  They see the heart you have and the soul you were given as unworthy to them.  You are either going to let them look at your heart  and soul and say, "unworthy", or you are going to stand up for yourself and tell  them your heart, just as it is, has a communion with God and they have no right or presumed authority to  question it.

It was only 2 months ago that the Mormon Church paid a lot of money to help pass prop. 8 in California.  There was that moment of clarity when Melissa Etheridge cut though all the smoke and dust and drew that line in the sand saying she would not pay taxes if they did not give her the same rights as other citizens.  That hits the bedrock, they want your taxes but they want to deny you your rights. 

Now we have the Rick Warren 'issue' and there seems to be a lot of smoke and dust swirling around this one too.  His church will not allow someone who is gay to join.  That is the bedrock.  No matter how placating and pleading and pathetic the reasoning, it does not explain away that bedrock.  Prop 8 denies gays their ‘rights', Pastor Rick's church denies them themselves. If you believe that ‘gayness’ is something one can put on or off like clothes, then you can disrobe and enter the halls of Pastor Rick's grace.  But if gayness is experienced as part of  who you are, and to deny it is to deny a part of yourself, then you can either lie  to yourself and enter the good Pastor's kingdom or stand up for yourself and be  banished.  To me it makes no logical sense; deprivation of rights is crossing a line but denial of one's self is "oh well, Pastor Rick seems to mean well."  Absurd!  It seems that even Melissa has been duped and confused by that smooth tongued wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Melissa was upset that they would deprive her of her rights, whereas Pastor Rick would deprive her of herself.  Oh, but he feels for the poor. 

This 'gay' issue is a wound that will not heal, it festers on and on.  I think it is because gays don't say, "Enough!"  There is no getting around what his church stands for.  They may have taken it off their web page but that is still their policy.  Or did he come out and denounce and reject that policy, was there a press conference I missed?  To 'clear the palate' entertain the thought for a  minute of Mr. Obama selecting a pro-segregationist pastor whose church does not  allow blacks to become members.  What would the reaction be?  Would all those pundits still be on TV saying it was 'politically clever' to do it?   Would they be saying this was a good way for Barack to stand up to his base?  Or could Barack say it shows 'inclusiveness' to invite one who excludes others to have a place of honor at the inauguration? No!  Barack spoke at his church, the reciprocal invitation would be for Warren to speak at Obama's church, or maybe a special conference for religious leaders, let him speak there. But the reciprocal is NOT giving him a place of honor in the national space, thereby implicitly honoring what he and his church represent.

How is it "OK" for Pastor Rick to speak to our nation when he is the head of a church that does not acknowledge that a gay person is a spiritual being, as is?   It's time to say, "Enough!” to boycott that event and have every right-thinking person you know boycott that event.  One idea I had, (and I have no idea if it is a good one or bad one) was to have everyone tune into Turner Classic Movies during the inauguration.  Have everyone you know and every TV you can muster tuned into TCM and NOT the inauguration.  That would show solidarity (and hopefully TCM will put on a suitable movie).

Whether that is a good idea or not, the bottom line is that everyone needs to grasp the bedrock firmly and not be moved or deluded.  This is the bedrock; Rick Warren represents a church that denies gays have the right to exist as they are.  They see the heart you have and the soul you were given as unworthy to them.  You are either going to let them look at your heart  and soul and say, "unworthy", or you are going to stand up for yourself and tell  them your heart, just as it is, has a communion with God and they have no right or presumed authority to  question it.  Rick Warren is wrong, Barack Obama is wrong, and all those pundits are wrong.  That is the bedrock.  Are you a soul that has a relationship with God, just as you are, or do you need Mr. Warren and Mr. Obama's say so?  It is YOUR choice.  Boycott the inauguration and have everyone you know boycott it.  Turn your backs on them as they have done to you. 

< Can we get a shoe for Condoleezza Rice | People do follow the Bible >
 Display:

Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others. Stop gay apartheid.

 

 

 

by boarderthom on 12/28/2008 07:16:28 PM EST

This is why the Gay Rights cause will not be taken seriously in this country - comparing the brutality of South African style apartheid to denying a legal classification for of marraige is absurd and flat out ridiculous! Gays have been "married" for centuries and living normal equal lives - just because they do not have the legal status doesn't mean they aren't living happily together, raising children and succeeding in the American Dream! - To compare gay marraige to apartheid is irresponsible and show your lack of understanding of how the world really works! :)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 02:59:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I actually support Gay Marraige as a legal status for the simple fact that it doesn't affect me or my children in any way - I don't care if queers get married, have kids and live wonderful happy lives - What I get upset about are these militant queers like Chinese Democracy who are in our faces all the time saying that we have to embrace and accept their lifestyle as "normal" in todays world. It is not normal - but that's OK with me - I'm not all together normal either, so why should I worry about what homosexuals are doing with their lives? But to compare their "plight" with atrocities like apartheid is simply revolting and further seperates the divide between the 2 sides of this argument... :)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 04:20:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are the only ones talking - that's a big problem in all of this. :)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 06:05:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ellen and Rachel Maddow are so militant it makes me sick.

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 06:09:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is a glaring difference between Ellen and Maddow in terms of this issue. Ellen IS a militant homosexual inasmuch as she has tied her homosexuality TOTALLY to her perrsona and character - her old sitcom, her comedy routines and her talk show are centered on the fact that she was in fact gay - her whole identity and fame is driven by her homosexuality! That is a militant, especially when it comes to being a spokesperson for the gay rights cause - In contrast, Rachel Maddow does not go out and scream LESBIAN every 2 seconds on her radio and TV shows. Everyone knows she is gay, sher is comfortable in her homosexuality and she has no need to flaunt it to every Tom Dick and Harry watching her... Maddow is relevant, intelligents and witty, none of which depends on the publics perception of her sexuality!!! - There is a HUGE difference between these 2 examples, Spencer... Try again! :)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 06:26:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm tired of militant straight people.  Charlie Sheen must be stopped!  His whole identity/sitcom/public image is based around bedding as many women as possible.  It's sooo annoying.

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 06:31:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Charlie Sheen isnt asking the government for special consideration - Ellen is...

Come back when you actually have a counter argument

:)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 08:29:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I might be wrong on this, but I think Charlie Sheen can already get married and receive the benefits that that union entails. Gays can't.

Come back when you have an issue worth arguing that isn't just empty anger at some phantom "other".

And, just for the record, you've now ended a sentence with a hyphen, an ellipses, and now just nothing at all.  What do you have against the period?  Seriously, it's weird.

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 08:36:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Homosexuals are asking the government (Ie the people) to allow them to marry those of the same gender as they are - that is a special consideration under the law. Charlie Sheen isn't asking to marry Jon Cryer - Charlie Sheen can marry any slut girl he wants to... Just not slut boys! You can't even spell faggot, so why are you worried about my punctuation, or lack thereof! :)

by bobo1 on 12/29/2008 09:02:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm fairly sure fagot is spelled with one g.  But regardless, I'll cede some ground to you in the hate speech spelling category.  You clearly have more experience than me.

The rest of your "point" is retarded and not worth arguing, as I said earlier.

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 09:10:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
unsurprisingly, you're both wrong.  Notice how in this link (from an actual dictionary mind you [sorry OHK]) "fagot" is the main entry and "faggot" is the variant.  I'm not wrong, it's just a different spelling.  In fact, it's the main spelling, so if anything that makes me more...  Fuck this.

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 10:23:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what does "militant" mean in this context anyway?  They speak up about it?  What's the criteria for militancy?

by Spencer on 12/29/2008 06:10:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I read through the comments.  They seemed to have nothing to do with what I wrote.  There was a reference to Prop 8 but that was not the main point.  I said his church does not allows gays in it.  If you are gay, you can't be a member.  Where do you homophobes get "gay marriage" out of that?

There is a principle at work here, those who fight the hardest against "gay" have the deepest, darkest secret and inner hate for themselves.  

Because of your inner demons you were unable to see the whole framework of the argument I was laying out.  The mere mention of Prop 8, triggered you inner past impressions and overshadowed your mind so completely that you were unable to think beyond that point.  You need to evolve a little so that your mind is not so overshadowed by those latent impressions and is able to  rise above them to clearly see what is being said.  Instead of going off on your knee jerk rants. 

 

 

by pdsimdars on 01/07/2009 09:50:29 PM EST

And all the talk of militant gays.  Like I said, your minds were full of your hate and fear and past impressions or something.

My suggestion was to not watch the inauguration.  How is that militant?

 You have unbalanced minds.

by pdsimdars on 01/07/2009 09:52:50 PM EST

 Display: