NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST QUESTIONS OBAMA'S INVOCATION PICK

In his sunday op-ed piece, New York Times columnist Frank Rich questions Obama's decision to pick anti-gay pastor Rick Warren to give the coveted invocation at his inauguration.

Rich praises Obama for the contagious feelings of hope that his election has instilled in the overwhelming majority of Americans. And for the hope of a new sense of cooperation based on knowledge, integrity and forthrightness that our friends, allies and trade partners have expressed.

Rich said that he shares these hopes too but he also said that, "...for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month."

As Rich explained in his column:

As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong.

Granted, Warren isn't quite as much of a fanatic as the homosexually obsessed family-values ayatollahs like James Dobson and Tony Perkins. In fact, he was viciously pounced on by the Phyllis Schlafly gang when he invited Obama to speak about AIDS at his Saddleback Church two years ago. That visit is pretty much why he was picked for the invocation.

But, as Frank Rich put it:

"There’s no reason why Obama shouldn’t return the favor by inviting him to Washington. But there’s a difference between including Warren among the cacophony of voices weighing in on policy and anointing him as the inaugural’s de facto pope. You can’t blame V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an early Obama booster, for feeling as if he’d been slapped in the face. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” he told The Times, but “we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most-watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”"

I, of course, share Bishop Robinson's feelings but I'm also hopeful that this shameful incident will become just a bad memory and not the defining point of a Barack Obama presidency. The only way that can happen is if Obama actually does follow through on the many promises he has made to our community.

The key to that is constant vigilance and a readiness to SPEAK OUT LOUDLY when it looks like he may veer from that course. I'm sure he wants to be reelected in 2012. And, if our newly formed activist groups continue to grow and become even more organized and the ranks of our straight allies continue to swell, NO politician is going to risk alienating a voting block that big and that vocal.

It's up to us what happens from here.

SIGOURNEY WEAVER STARS IN "PRAYERS FOR BOBBY"

Queers United posted this trailer for the must watch upcoming movie "Prayers For Bobby" on the Lifetime channel.

As you'll see by the clip, Sigourney Weaver delivers an awesome performance as the real life mother of a young man who comes out to his family. The inability of his religiously devout mother to accept who he is drives him to suicide and plunges the mother into an emotional, guilt-ridden free-fall that ultimately results in her conversion into an outspoken, fulltime activist for the GLBT community.

The movie will air on the Lifetime network on Saturday, January 24th at 9pm EST.

Pass the word on...

ARE DEMOCRATS BACKING DOWN ON "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL"

According to a story at Box Turtle Bulletin today, the Washington publication Roll Call reported that Congressional Democrats are now considering shelving debate on the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

The talk is that they're not just thinking of putting it aside for a few months to give the Obama administration and the new congress time to settle-in. That would be almost logical and, to some degree, maybe even acceptable. But no. They seem to want to shelve it for 2 YEARS! That would be after the 2010 midterm elections. By that time, if the Democrats continue in this direction, they may end up not even being the majority - just like they did in 1996. In fact, they may never again be in as strong a position to do this as they will be next year when all of the newly elected minions assume their positions.

Apparently key Democrats, including some openly gay representatives, are afraid of stirring up the same hornet's nest that Clinton caused in 1992 when he tried to open the military to the GLBT community shortly after he took office. As most of you will remember, congress and the military went ballistic and that frenzied homophobia is what created the DADT policy to begin with.

I'm sure that many Democrats blamed their 1996 loss on that debacle. They're wrong. What defeated them is that they had control of the house, the senate and the presidency (like now) but couldn't agree on just about anything and backed down on everything their party was supposed to stand for - defending the little guy and simply doing what's right.

Their logic now is absolutely mind-boggling to me. This is not 1992. This time around, the repeal has the expressed support of Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was one of the most outspoken opponents of allowing gays to serve openly. It also has the support of a majority of the country (according to the lastest polls) as well as an impressive number of retired Generals and Admirals who served during those years and were just as opposed to it as Powell used to be.

All of them cite the reality that the country's attitudes have changed significantly since then. They also recognize that the countries that have allowed gays to serve openly in their ranks haven't experienced any of the doomsday effects they had all feared in 1992. They have all said publicly that NOW is the time to reconsider this policy.

What I would say to the Democrats is "tread lightly." The GLBT community spent a lot of time, a lot of manpower and A LOT OF MONEY to help get you elected. And, thanks to Proposition 8, we're a lot more organized and a lot more activist oriented down on the streets now than we were before the election. I haven't seen this much anger, activism and commitment since my involvement with the Gay Activist Alliance in New York in the early 70's.

The fire we all felt then has been reignited today and it's not going to dim anytime soon. In fact, if there isn't the substantial progress our community now expects, that fire is only going to grow hotter and brighter.

I'm hoping they'll come to their senses and reconsider their plans.