support for gays is largely a superficial thing

as i’ve been saying for months. 

take this, for example:

Ever since Barack Obama was obliged to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (and all the right-wing hyperventilating that entailed), our President has been lacking a home church.  To fill that vacuum Obama has embraced five pastors, presumably to dispense spiritual wisdom and not, one would hope, stick their evangelical noses into politics.  Four of those pastors blindly follow fundie “values,” while the fifth might be described as only mildly progressive since he loudly disassociates himself from “left-leaning” churches.

who are these five?

Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out writes:  These holy men are: Rev. Joel Hunter, former head of the Christian Coalition; anti-gay Bishop T.D. Jakes; the ex-gay loving Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; and Jim “waffling” Wallis, a protean progressive. The only Obama shaman who isn’t shameless is the civil rights era preacher Rev. Otis Moss Jr.  Rev. Jakes refers to homosexuality as “brokenness” and has claimed that he wouldn’t hire a sexually active gay person… Wallis, the chief executive of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, holds “traditional” views on homosexuality and abortion, according to the Times article. Although Wallis has taken some affirmative steps on GLBT equality, he prides himself on not being a part of “the religious left.”  Rev. Caldwell has endorsed Metanoia, an ex-gay ministry designed to “help homosexuals understand with God’s help that ‘change [is] possible.”  When the GLBT community worked to elect Obama, this is not what we thought he meant when he promised “change.”

the obama administration recently endorsed the un statement calling for a decriminalization of homosexuality (something the bush admin refused to sign) and he deserves credit for doing so; ~HOWEVER~, at the same time, he’s surrounding himself with what can only be described as anti-gay bigots. (not to mention his choice of anti-gay bigot rick warren for an inauguration speech).  why the conflicting messages?  because it’s still socially acceptable to be anti-gay - it’s their “religious beliefs”, therefore they have a “right to their opinion”. 

well, guess what?  people like jerry falwell had “religious beliefs”, too:

Falwell launched on the warpath against civil rights four years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate public schools with a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

for the most part, we tend to shun people who espouse such racist religious nonsense these days and rightly so.  somehow, we even manage to do so without calling them “n******”.  yet, let a ted haggard be “outed” and you’ll find many, who in their zeal to attack a “rightwinger”, do so by denouncing him for being a “fag”.  i understand attacking these men for their hypocrisy; however it is possible to do so *without using homosexuality as a slur*.  colour me silly, but i expect better from those on the left.  (personally, i don’t think “attacking” them is the right way to go about it, regardless.  they should be used as an example, with some modicum of compassion, to illustrate what happens to people when a society is so discriminatory that people will lie to themselves and others about who/what they are.)

we’ve come a long, long way, but we have much, much further to go. 

along the same lines of thought, i recently ran into a discussion on “ableist language”, which now has me monitoring my own speech and the words that i use.  “crazy” will be the hardest to rid myself of, as i don’t associate it with mental illness, but absurdity; however, i intend on making the attempt to change my speech…so rightwingers, relax, i will no longer call you “crazy” or “nutjobs” or “psycho”... i’ll just refer to you as illogical asshats :D

| More