I am disagreeable

Obama had this to say today regarding the angry reaction gay people and feminists are having at his choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation:

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and — well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign’s been all about, that we’re never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery — who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues — is also speaking.

It’s very easy to ask us to “disagree without being disagreeable” when it’s not you who’s asked to drink at a separate water fountain — or more accurately in the case of gay equality, to not be allowed any water at all.
Other than breathing and wearing clothes, the amount I have in common with Rick Warren is exactly zilch. He presents himself as a moderate, but he is certainly radical right. He’s offensive to the core.

I recognize a shit sandwich when I see one, Mr. President Elect — I’m sorry, I’m not going to eat this one.

UPDATE: From the comments at Wonkette: “Fine they can “disagree” on issues. Now give me All of my fucking rights.”

And here’s another good comment at Wonkette:

“Sorry – inc1usivess doesn’t include asshats. That’s dumb relativism being it’s dumb, illogical self. If I thought Obama was a relativist, I wouldn’t have voted for him. Inclusiveness isn’t about not making judgments, it’s about making the right ones with respect to humanity. Anyone who includes inhumanity with humanity is just going to be running in useless circles all day. There. Sermon over.”

And another great comment from Melissa McEwan:
“Human dignity and equality does not have to come down an either-or proposition. Symbolic equality is nothing without substantive equality, and substantive equality paired with symbols of oppression is not full equality at all.”

This Post Has One Comment

  1. Wil

    “Social Issue”.
    Can someone please explain to me what a “social issue” is? Was slavery a social issue? How about giving the right to vote to women and minorities? Of course, given the Bible’s view on slavery and women, I guess they are. But, it seems to me that the Declaration of Independence guarantees equality to everyone.
    No, Mr. President-Elect, sometimes the symbolism of your actions speak louder than your words of “inclusion”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.