donuts.jpg

Think Progress has a sneak preview of Dateline NBC’s interview (there’s still Dateline NBC?) with Rick Warren, set to air tomorrow night.

Watch for the doth protest too much maniacal laugh when Curry asks him if he’s homophobic.

You want equal rights? Sorry, no. Have a donut!

Anthony Hecht is The Stranger's Chief Technology Officer. He owns no monkeys.

48 replies on “Warren: I Gave Them Donuts”

  1. I wanna know who his gay “friends” are. What are their names? Can we ask them how they feel about being friends with Rick Warren when he calls them rapists and pedophiles? Must beat your run-of-the-mill dinner conversations.

  2. Again with the Rick Warren thing. Why not argue for the seperation of church and state. remove the state from the marriage argument. make straight people get there civil marraige at the court house and their religious marraige at the church. Take away the power and quit bitching about a prayer. Thats all Warren does. It’s like Aunt Ethel saying the fucking grace. then the bitch shuts up and gets to listen to all the other people there, who actually get to say shit about policy.

  3. “Every single culture, every single religion, for 5,000 years.” What a moron. It’s amazing how these demonstrably false statements–refuted so easily by anyone who took a history class in college–are allowed to stand.

  5. It pains me to say this. I find Warren detestable. But I now believe Obama is doing the right thing. I think it is very clever. I’m not saying people should not object, but that it is a smart thing to do.(That is, as long as Warren isn’t dictating policy.)

  9. @1 and 6,

    Ted Haggard and Larry Craig.

    What an ugly piece of shit. Carlin’s maxim about anti-choicers applies to homobigots too. Who wants to fuck any of them?

  10. Anthony,
    This is not a defense of Warren’s chortle/response but that was a foolish question on Curry’s part to pose to Warren. It is not as if he was going to say “Yes! I’m a homophobe.” It reminded me of when Diane Sawyer asked Mel Gibson if he was anti-semitic.

    Look, we have now reach the point in the gay marriage debate where if one (especially a public figure) is against it, one can be called a homophobic bigot. Sure, Warren has more anti-gay baggage but Warren’s and Obama’s definitions of marriage are the same. Ann Curry’s look of self-rightoues indignation isn’t going to bridge the gap between herself, gay marriage advocates and Warren.

  14. Pah-raise the Lord, for Pastor-ah Rick-ah Warren-ah has actually been into the home of a gay couple and he did actually consume food there! Into his sanctified oral cavity! Did this take place with or without a food taster? Did he say “grace”? I bet he will also tell you that some of his best friends are Jews, if you ask nicely.

  15. I keep watching that video and have flash backs to when I came out at Whitworth back in the mid 1990’s. Fuck, he sounds like the “supportive” members of the college’s administration. I won’t tell you want the non-supportive one’s told me.

  17. @3 absolutely right. not even american society has kept a constant definition of marriage. that whole tradition argument and the pain that will somehow be caused by gay marriage is such crap. and who cares anyway, slavery was a ten thousand year old ‘tradition’, but i’m glad it’s gone. tradition isn’t that important, sometimes it needs to adapt. like now.

    also, i wish curry had posed her homophobe question in reverse. instead of asking him if he’s a homophobe right out she should have asked if he understood why people would be upset with him when he objects to their very existence. then brought up the word homophobe. it doesn’t make any sense to claim that you don’t hate gay people if your ultimate desire is to see them cease to exist.

  18. Every religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman? ARGGH. Quakerism, Unitarianism, United Church of Christ, Buddhism, Neopaganism, and various progressive Christian and Jewish sects, etc., recognize gay marriage. Not to mention there are plenty of religions that define it as between a man and several women.

    Why do we let people just lie like that?

  20. I like Warren and the values he promotes. I also love our new President elect. The President sets the tone for the nation to follow as example, and as far as I’m concerned Barack is a leader starting his term beautifully.

  21. Enough with his “for 5000 years marriage has been defined as a man and a woman” bullshit. Somebody needs to start calling him on this lie. The “man and a woman” definition is actually fairly recent.

  22. Obama is wrong on this. Period. His defense of his position actually frightens me even more. He clearly does not get that homophobia is equal to racism. I doubt he would consider putting a preacher on that stage that had worked to take away rights from people because of their race. We need to take a stand against this.

  23. ….and, you can do something about this. Obama’s folks do pay attention to the web, and already, one of the places Obama made a huge impact with – Facebook – has several groups protesting this decision.

    the group is at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40…

    here’s their suggestions:

    Anti-gay pastor Rick Warren has been selected to give invocation at Obama inauguration. This is an utter nightmare and a total insult to the LGBT community and their straight allies.

    There are few things you can do about this,

    1. Send Obama a letter at http://change.gov/page/content/contact/ and ask Rick Warren to be removed from the event!

    2. Email Parag Mehta, Obama’s LGBT liaison on the transition team at parag.mehta@ptt.gov to express your concern.

    3. Emmett Belivau is the Executive Director/CEO of the Inaugural Committee. Let him know your thoughts:
    202-203-1715 emmett@pic2009.org

    4. Have your voice to be heard and send emails to the members of Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, including

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index…

    Sen. Harry Reid
    http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

    Sen. Bob Bennett
    http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/email_…

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi
    http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

    Rep. Steny Hoyer
    http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/email.asp

    Rep. John Boehner
    http://johnboehner.house.gov/Contact/

  25. Homosexuality, unlike skin color, is a choice. It is a choice in that one can refrain from participating. Sooo like abortion, there will never be a resolution to our (gays) satisifaction. The church will never come around on this one so it will always be open season on gays.

  26. Hi there, @ 25. Nice try on the “I’m gay and I think it’s a choice” angle, with a little extra abortion angst thrown in there. Liar. Just say who you are.

    Rick Warren should be reminded that up until last 100 years, every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islaam, Hinduism, etc. etc.) and every major civilization (Greece, Egypt, Rome, Western Europe, China, Inca, Aztec, etc. etc.) clearly stated that women were to be subservient and obedient to men.

    Gosh, we never should have given those bitches the vote.

  27. Guess what? I’m betting that if the controversy was race and not sexual orientation, given the depth and breadth of the cultural divide, I’d bet that Obama would be inviting Strom Thurmond or whomever. It’s not the opinion per se, it’s the huge numbers of people who hold it, and thawing them out is a gradual process of exposure and outreach. Shutting them out and demonizing them doesn’t win hearts and minds.

    Given all of that, I’ll acknowledge that it’s high time for Obama to throw the gay community a bone.

  30. Homosexuality, unlike race or gender, is a behavior. There is no such creature as a “homosexual”. There are people who engage in homosexual behavior and/or people who self identify as ‘homosexual’ but there is no way to identify someone as homosexual except to take their word for it. And they can change their mind anytime they want. Or claim that they are “bi”. Convenient. Everyone is capable of heterosexual behavior, every one is biologically heterosexual.
    Quit trying to force society to endorse your behavior choices or play your word games.
    It is past old.

  31. @ 30,

    So you could just choose to be gay if you wanted to?

    Sexuality isn’t a choice, dumbass.

    That line’s so old it’s got wiskers on it.

  32. Religion, unlike race or gender, is a behavior. There is no such creature as a “Christian”. There are people who engage in “Christian” behavior and/or people who self identify as ‘Christian’ but there is no way to identify someone as Christian except to take their word for it. And they can change their mind anytime they want. Or claim that they are “Mormon”. Convenient. Everyone is capable of rational behavior, every one is biologically rational.
    Quit trying to force society to endorse your behavior choices or play your word games.
    It is past old.

  33. 32
    You are right.
    Religion is the only changeable choosable characteristic protected as a Civil Right. If Gays want to assert that their religious beliefs are homosexuality go for it. But don’t try to force your beliefs on the rest of society.
    Otherwise no more donuts for you…

  34. 31
    sure
    lots of people experiment with homosexual behavior.
    what are bisexuals? they choose to engage in either and/or both. CHOOSE
    try to pay attention to the world around you.

  35. 33

    yes, and you’re wrong.

    1.What justification is there for religion being the ONLY alleged choice protected as a Civil Right? Hint, it isn’t the first amendment, discrimination based on religion was perfectly legal until the mid 20th century.

    2. Since freedom of belief is protected by the first amendment, and discrimination based on religion is illegal, the courts are right to determine that discrimination against gays on the basis of religious condemnations is illegal. Hence the courts are not being activist, they are merely restraining an over-reaching majority from trampling the Civil Rights of the minority. No need to assert any religious beliefs.

    BTW: Many religions already recognize and perform same-sex weddings, what is your justification for forcing our beliefs on them?

  36. 35
    Mr Jackass,
    Enlightened social policy, not religion, dictate that society not foster or endorse homosexual behaviors.

    Thirty states have codified that in their constitution and the newly elected President we just swept into office endorses it as well.

    Are you catching on to that, yet?

  37. 36,

    What “enlightened social policy”? Let’s hear the justifications for denying equal rights.

    No, the newly elected President did NOT endorse these bigoted amendments.

    Now you’re just lying.

  39. Enlightened social policy that recognizes and protects families as vehicles to produce and raise the next generation.
    Enlightened social policy that does not let the concept of ‘family’ become a chit in the game of ‘my lifestyle choices are just as good as yours’.

    You don’t know Obama as well as you think you do.

    Watch and you will learn about Obama’s New World Order (hint- it ain’t about Gay marriage)

    How much capital did Obama spend on Prop 8?
    The election is over. What has Obama done for Gays since Nov 4?
    Even one tiny crumb??

  40. Whoa there, Ricky. Buddhism says nothing about marriage. Don’t try to lump Buddhist philosophy with hateful Judeo-Christian beliefs. Your religion has already done enough damage to the East.

  41. ” recognizes and protects families as vehicles to produce and raise the next generation.”

    That is EXACTLY what marriage equality would do! It would recognize, respect and protect ALL families, those headed by same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents. Since we do not currently require the presence of children (or the desire for them) of opposite-sex couples to access the rights of civil marriage, and enlightened social policy would not require it of opposite-sex couples either.

    An enlightened social policy most certainly wouldn’t treat marriage and the recognition of families (of all shapes and sizes) as a chit in your game of “your lifestyle choices aren’t as good as mine”.

    You see families headed by same-sex parents are a fact, the only question is whether the government recognizes them, or ignores them to satisfy your need to feel your choices are better.

  42. 41
    Homosexual couples do not produce children. If they raise them are they going to teach them that they should grow up to be heterosexuals and have kids? Maintaining the species is tough work and not for the faint of heart. The family is under tremendous assault from a host of social pathologies; divorce, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, etc etc. Giving legal sanction and equal status to a competing lifestyle choice is a luxury we do not have.
    sorry

  43. @42 – Really? You’re going there? You think that homosexuals raise worse kids than heteros? Where’s your (non-church-funded) science to back you up? I’d link you a ton of studies that say otherwise if not for Slog’s link restriction, but here’s one:

    http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/…

    “Homosexual couples do not produce children” – Neither do a large number of heterosexual couples, but nobody’s requiring them to get divorced when they don’t have kids.

    “If they raise them are they going to teach them that they should grow up to be heterosexuals and have kids?” – Probably, in the extremely likely event that the kids turn out to be hetero. Sexual orientation is innate, not learned, which you would figure out if you’ve ever actually known a gay person. And if the parents are the parenting types, won’t they teach their kids to be parents too?

    “The family is under tremendous assault from a host of social pathologies; divorce, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, etc etc. Giving legal sanction and equal status to a competing lifestyle choice is a luxury we do not have.” – Given all the single-parent homes out there, and the high divorce rate and all the other problems you cite, shouldn’t we encourage well-adjusted gays to contribute to the hard work of raising kids?

    Seriously now, these arguments are just paper-thin. I’d like to think not every opponent of gay marriage is a bigot, but I’ve never seen them advance any sensible reasoning that’s not just emotional, irrational claptrap. Better bigots, please!

  44. Wow. It seems someone thinks homosexuality is just so darn attractive that all these heterosexuals are so morally weak that would convert to the big “H” in a heartbeat if only samesex marriage were legal. LOL OMG! I never realized the whole population was secretly queer. I think heteros are ruining marriage all by themselves without any help from “teh gayz” If they have so much trouble being loving to people of the other sex, well maybe they should try loving someone of the same sex. I mean, it worked for Jesus amd John the beloved disciple so it could work for other guys too. Just sayin’ . . .

  45. @42

    Goodness, you can’t be the real Charles Darwin. He wasn’t an asshole. (He did have a gay brother though).

    I’m sure the real Darwin would quickly point out to you that maintaining the species is incredibly easy. Look at the hordes of people being born all over the world – you can be illiterate, ignorant, deranged and still produce children. It’s the path of least resistance. “More individuals are produced than can possibly survive to maturity” is how he put it, I believe. Earth’s population has doubled in the last 30 years.

    By the way, you should know that banning gay marriage won’t remove a single homosexual relationship from the face of the Earth. Try burning us instead, it almost worked last time.

  46. “Homosexual couples do not produce children.”

    And yet we have the fact of gay couples raising children. So however they were produced, the fact is there are gay couples raising children. You have yet to provide any reason why these couples and their children should not receive the benefits of civil marriage.

    I would think that gay couples, like any other good parent would raise their children to be who they are, whether that be gay or straight. I would hate to think that any parent would choose to try and force their children to be a specific sexual orientation.

    Since granting the benefits of marriage to gay couples wouldn’t affect straight couples and their marriages in the least, whatever “assaults” you or anyone else may think they are under is irrelevant to the question of marriage equality. This isn’t a zero sum game, granting marriage benefits to gay couples doesn’t require us to take any benefits away from anyone else. In fact, it could be argued that removing the stigma of discrimination from marriage would make it more attractive to straight couples.

    I guess some of us see equality as a bare minimum, while you think it’s a “luxury”, how sad.

  47. Sorry, Buddy, but you’re betting on the wrong pony. The amendments you point to with such fervour are blips. Youth in general do not have your prejudices, and will be voting to overturn those amendments in less than a generation. You and the other dinosaurs will be replaced by higher life forms.
    Ta ta. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Comments are closed.