Saturday, December 20, 2008

Gay Backlash Overwhelms Presidential Transition

I watched Rachel Maddow's show last night. Not only is she funny, but she's a heckuva lot prettier than Keith Olbermann. Plus watching her show reveals just how much influence nihilist left bloggers have on the mainstream Democratic Party agenda - a point to keep in mind when leftists dismiss the policy impact of hardline bloggers like Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and their rotten ilk.

In discussing the Obama/Warren invocation controversy, Maddow made the case against Warren for his "bigotry" and "hatred," citing John Aravosis at AmericaBlog. At issue is Warren's apparent exclusion of "unrepentant" gays from the ministry of Saddleback Church. Aravosis links to Warren's home page in a post, "Rick Warren Explicitly Bans "Unrepentant" Gays From Membership in His Church."

Now, citing Aravosis raises an interesting quandary: While the "unrepentant" gay issue is troublesome from the perspective of inclusion, Maddow's citation of Aravosis is equally so. As Rick Moran demonstrated during the primaries, Aravosis, last June, stooped to the lowest of the low in attacking John McCain's qualifications for the presidency, arguing that "Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience."

While Aravosis is far from a credible source - and his comments on McCain are beyond the pale - he has a point about Warren's position on gays at church; and it's here where folks might rightly ask themselves where they're located on the issue of civil rights for gay Americans. While Warren, as a pastor of a private church, may by rights exclude gay members from his congregation, his practice gives ammunition to his secular and anti-Christianist attackers.

And all of this brings up an interesting thought: What if Barack Obama had it all figured out? What if the President-Elect, realizing Warren's religious fundamentalism might be offputting to many folks of faith who might otherwise hold more welcoming thoughts for homosexuals, people who might be less likely to compare gays to pedophiles or incest lovers, and who might, in fact, realize that same-sex marriage can be firmly opposed on both secular and religious grounds, and thus such demonization of gays is gratuitous and unproductive to the traditionalist case ... what if he picked Warren anyway, on the likely chance of instigating a backlash beyond the radical gay base? Sure, Warren could go on to give the inaugural invocation, but by then Obama, seeing partisan division and distress spread across the land, would have a ready excuse to backpeddle, to renounce his relationship to the "purpose driven" pastor and his ministry of exclusion, and then come out in favor of gay marriage. That's where all of this is headed ultimately, so Obama could have devised a brilliantly underhanded ploy of plausible deniability.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has done his own about face. He's announced that the state will seek to overturn Proposition 8 at the California Supreme Court, arguing that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Looking at this from the sidelines one would think that, heck, forget majority rule. Tyranny of the majority must be so bad that any aggressive minority can have its way, traditionalism, objective right, and constitutional processes be damned.

But that's the way things are going in this country. We've got a president-elect who squeezed under the media radar with a free pass. We've got the Democratic-left which lies and distorts the truth to fit any purpose, folks who can demonize John McCain for his patriotism in captivity on the one hand, and then turn around and argue in favor radical gay rights activists who adopt the same tactics of totalitarianian intolerance of McCain's captors in Hanoi.

It doesn't make sense, but that's the world we live in right now. Sometimes I think it's best to just let things play out. The traditional majority's not dead, and by no means without power. The radical left, with its allies in Washington and Sacramento, will overplay their hand, and as the economy trundles through the current cyclical downturn, the political pendulum will swing back to more conservative traditionalism. Folks on the right might as well hunker down for a while, clinging to their guns and religion after all, and let the storm pass. Socialism's been tried before and in every instance it's failed. There's no reason to expect the current era to be triumphant over the long haul. And thank God for that.


Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Hi Donald,

You have excellent articles. Hope to see you on national interviews one day. I consider bloggers my best source of news. The MSM would gain some credibility if they would pull your newsgathering source-your editorial opinions... onto their live interviews. I might even watch the MSM rather than listen to clips - if they did a turnabout and included you and blogoers like you - kind of like how Obama is including Warren, btw.

#1. Homosexuality IS the equal of pedophilia, etc., incest at level of impurity and debauchery It just IS. When they try to make it the "equal" of heterosexuality - it's a no go. However, the difference in homosexuality is that adults are consensual though the act is THAT immoral.

Unrepentant homosexuals cannot be members of churches. Nor can unrepentant heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage cannot be members of the church either. Only persons who are married - meaning a man and a woman - may engage in sex and be members of the church in goodstanding.

Just a point, Obama would not have won this election were it not for evangelical Christians voting for him - much on the basis of the perceived credibility given to him by Warren. I've said that from the beginning, and statistically it is true. It is THAT crucial "swing vote" that elected Barack Obama. And it was on the basis of Rick Warren's perceived acceptance of Barack Obama. That's the electorate Obama cannot afford to lose, if he goes up for election in 2012. If he can successfully deceive Christians in the USA, he's in. Christians willing to compromise on abortion because they are so vigorously opposed to war.

As far as this nation not going left, I think you're thinking in terms of a "responsive government". The populace has NOT swung in a majority "hard left". But that doesn't matter. The Government need only swing "hard left". For example, it didn't take a majority to entomb abortion in our nation's legal system. It took 9 Supreme Court Justices who cared not for democratic rule of law.

He's going hard left. Here's Obama:

Proverbs 6:12-18 (New Living Translation)

12 What are worthless and wicked people like?
They are constant liars,
13 signaling their deceit with a wink of the eye,
a nudge of the foot, or the wiggle of fingers.
14 Their perverted hearts plot evil,
and they constantly stir up trouble.
15 But they will be destroyed suddenly,
broken in an instant beyond all hope of healing.

He's multi-faced. He's not even just two-faced. He's multi-faced. He is not sincere in anything. He is amassing power any way he can, then he will put through his agenda, smile at people - and accept them to be stupid enough to believe what he says instead of what he's just done in enacting a hard left government.

And they will be stupid enough to believe what he says. Because he had Warren do the inauguration prayer. That's how stupid people are. They believe things based on emotion, and are easily deceived (a certain portion) if a person just smiles and says something - completely unrelated to the reality of what they are really up to.

That's why there are con men. I really believe he's going "hard left" irrespective of the pendulum swing of the nation's people. He just wants to be the one who sets the minute and hour hands. He doesn't care how the pendulum swings in the populace - he's going hard left.

That's what I... foretell. :)


AmPowerBlog said...


I'm not seeking the limelight, and frankly, I don't have time to be on national TV! I've got a wife and kids who need me at home, and I'm grading papers and doing my final grading for my students.

Thanks for your kinds words, and have a great holiday season.

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Hi Donald,

Sometimes the limelight seeks out people because of their gifts. There's a scripture that says that certain gifts bring people before kings. It's great your a great husband and dad and prof... but we need a little more light shining in the MSM here. :) So please be gracious when you are drafted into the limelight. :)

I'm supposed to be finishing up my book.... working on that final edit.

Merry Christmas to you and yours (and your blog readers here too)


AmPowerBlog said...

Thank you, Grace.

Norm said...

This is not the time to hunker down Professor. It's the time to look for the best 2010 mid-term candidates.

February brings the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. Every local Republican Club should be planning some event to bring Republican neighbors together in honor of this event. Each club should use this event to organize the activists and raise money.

We hope to take back Nassau County government from the Democrats and help Peter King in 2010 for Senate.

AmPowerBlog said...

Well, we'll hunker down for a couple of years at least, Norm. That doesn't mean we'll quit the fight politically, but I doubt the GOP will be regaining majority power any time soon.

Thanks for commenting.

Libby said...

donald, i wish both sides would just grow up a little! the dems always accuse the right of being so unforgiving...well, here's THEIR chance to show how inclusive they want to be!

AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks for commenting, Libby.

I've been blogging this issue since the election, and the gay marriage controversy is THE big social policy question of 2009. I think Obama will cave to the gay demands.

Anonymous said...

Hey Prof.

Well you are right about this gentlemen not being a credible source, whatsoever. In his report he glosses over 2 very important facts. I track backed the links to Saddleback's website and here is the exact quote he was referring to.

From Saddleback,

"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives."

In other words they are welcomed to worship just not become card carrying members. Then there is the paragraph right beneath, that Aravosis does not mention at all.

"In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives."

Seems the same rules apply to heterosexuals also. I would only assume Avarosis's answer to this would be, "Move along folks. nothing to see here."

Here is the link if you to Saddleback that I acquired these paragraphs from. It was provided at Aravosis's site.

As usual, the Progressive Left is distorting the truth and leaving out pertinent facts. All in order to gain a knee jerk emotional reaction from people to further their cause.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the typos, on cough meds. Teh ole' gray matter is fuzzier than normal.

AmPowerBlog said...

C.T.: I think the assumption is that gays will have to repent to be full members of Saddleback. But these folks, Aravosis and his allies, are relentless in their attacks on traditionalists.

Anonymous said...

Very true, but they are painting a picture of Warren that he is singling out homosexuals. By the description on Warren's site is not the case at all. The same rules apply to heterosexuals, also.

Law and Order Teacher said...

The old playbook is being pulled out and dusted off. If you can't win in the legislative process go to court where all it takes is some friendly judges and viola! you have new law. With BO now in charge he will appoint those friendly judges that will affect our country for years to come.

How dare these elected officials like Jerry Moonbeam take it on themselves to overrule the will of the people and assume that they are somehow annointed to know what's best. It's shocking to see how gutless state and federal legislators are when it comes to taking on the judiciary. I would like to see them repass legislation and take on the judges. That would be a constitutional fight I would pay to see.

Kenneth Davenport said...


Great post -- I've also been hunkered down this month in Colorado...enjoying the "white Christmas" of our own this year. I do love the crisp cool days and evenings in my old stomping grounds of South Orange County, however!

The radical gay agenda may be one of the vehicles with which the left overplays its hand (the other will certainly be global warming); the results from Prop 8 show that much of Obama's natural constituency is more conservative when it comes to homesexuality than is the leftist blogosphere and intellectual/media class. The furor over Warren is a great example of the total lack of common sense on the left, and though the media is playing along, there is a certain tone deafness among these people.

In my view the election was not a realigning one -- and was much closer than most people think. Obama seems to understand this, even if the kooks at the Daily Kos do not.

Merry Christmas to you and your family -- I look forward to more in the New Year!

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

In this case we need a an independent judiciary to prtect a segment of the populayion from the tyranny of the majority law and Order guy. Nobody is telling your church to recognize a gay marraige, or for that matter, any marraige not performed in any particular church.

Tapline said...

DD you outdid yourself...great post....also great comments.....The only comment I might make is forgiveness is given to those who ask for it...and another is "judge not that ye may be judged". stay well.....

cracker said...

to Truh 101,

its not a matter of churches being required to carry out "Gay" Marriage.

Churches/Religions, like US citizens, have an inherent autonomy here, its a founding cornerstone.

what we're talking about is whether the Federal Govt should recognize "Gay" marriages as legal.

States have their own choice to recognize or not, right now....and thats the way most prefer it (as a consideration from state to state, concerning their citizens, govt's and business's

At no time can the govt "Make" a church accept or perform or recognize any type ceremony.

The question is as The Prof. has said if "we are a Christian Nation" purely an Orthodox Christian Nation, then the scriptures and Gospel of said religion should be enacted to govern all citizens of this country as Law"

its called "Dominionism" its at the heart of the "culture wars", its the wedge that Atwater discovered and refined....

I digress,

The question has become "who is going to be the second class citizen?"

The "faithful" or the "not faithful enough".

and of course the answer is neither, as long as the constitution is kept intact and justice is the goal of law enforcement.

errr am i way off base here?

PS. If Warren has a nickel's worth of sense, he'd tell BO "thanks,it would be an honor, but no thanks." and show us where he stands...but alas the bed's warm why not just crawl in together.

Jen said...

Thanks Grace Explosion and Critical Thinker, I wanted to point out that Warren's policy on church membership would also apply to heterosexuals living in unrepentant adultery or fornication, but you beat me to it ... and with documentation too!

Law and Order Teacher said...

I never mentioned my church. I didn't make the argument based on religion. I made it based on the government foisting its collective findings on the population without benefit of trying in any way constructing a majority. As Madison argued in Federalist 10, factions will exist, however, republican government will protect against the tyranny of the majority. I don't think he had an activist judiciary in mind. Article One of the constitution gives immense power to the legislature. I think that is by design. Article Three pertaining to the legislature is miniscule by comparison. I think that was by design also.

Law and Order Teacher said...

That should read "Article Three pertaining to the judiciary." Sorry.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

" I made it based on the government foisting its collective findings on the population without benefit of trying in any way constructing a majority."

The vast majority of us are heterosexual. But because we find the sexual orientation of perhaps 5% of the population distasteful doesn't mean we have the right or some moral obligation to deny them the same rights we enjoy.

Thank you again for the forum Professor.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Rights yes. Homosexuals enjoy all the same civil rights as any citizen. Civil unions are recognized. Marriage is and should remain between a man and a woman. BTW, please don't give me the slavery argument, it doesn't apply. Race is involuntary. Homosexuality is a lifestyle. Big difference.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Gays are born gay Lawman. Despite what Anita Bryant believes, you can't change sexual orientation. And it wasn't that long ago there were laws on the books against interracial marraige. In the spirit of equal rights and protection, if you want to call all marraiges performed by the state to be called civil unions, and reserve the sacrement of marraige to the church, I would not argue with you.

Law and Order Teacher said...

"Gays are born gay lawman." Really. Who says? There have been any number of studies that tried to prove one way or the other. It hasn't been done yet. I don't feel society should legitimize behavior. I think criminality is behavior. As much as you want homosexuality to be genetic all the science hasn't been able to prove it. Instead, we are expected to legitimize every behavior in the name of diversity. Just because we want to be accepting of people, doesn't mean we have to accept aberrant behavior. As for your interracial analogy, it's specious. Nice try, but denying civil rights based on race is illegitimate.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

With your previous post Lawman, you show that you believe a lifestyle you find distasteful should not be protected. Although I also find the gay lifestyle distasteful, I wouldn't deny them the rights us so called normal people enjoy. Whether or not you think it's a choice or in the genes, what two consenting adults do is really not our business.

Law and Order Teacher said...

I don't have a problem with what two consenting adults do in private. As long as it is not destructive to other people. That's the key. Criminal behavior should not be legitimized. Homosexual behavior is something that is acceptable in private, but asking that it be acceptable to those of us who don't accept it is wrong.