Living in an alternate reality *UPDATE*

I think I’m processing history wrong, and I need your help filling in the gaps.

As you know, Obama invited Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration (a much better choice, I might add, than Wright would have been).  Some in the gay community, however, are very upset, feeling that Warren’s support for California’s Prop. 8 means that his selection is a direct insult to the gay community.  Those are facts.

What confuses me is this statement from Kevin Nash of the Washington Blade (a publication by and about gays):

We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians.

I know that the Bush administration was not a particularly homophilic administration.  Mostly, it was a homo-ignore-it administration — at least, that’s what I always thought.  Naff speaks of “eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president….” and I don’t know what he’s talking about.  Again, while Bush preside over a political agenda that showered new rights on gays, I don’t recall anything emanating from the White House that was hostile to gays.

One could point to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but that was a Clinton era relic.  So too was the Defense of Marriage Act.  While gay marriage became a huge issue during the Bush administration, it was an issue at the state level, not the federal level.  What am I forgetting that would see Mr. Naff feel that Bush specifically was responsible for psychic or physical insults to gays?

I should add here that I’m not seeking any input from y’all about the virtues or demerits of the gay agenda, which is a debate for another day.  I’m just wondering if I’m missing anything that the President — not the State, not individual preachers or speakers, but the President himself — did that constituted assaults on gays’ “dignity and equality.”

Hat tip:  Brutally Honest

UPDATERight Wing News has more on the reactions emanating to the Left with regard to Obama’s choice.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ellen

    I don’t remember any calls from the White House to bring out the torches and pitchforks and go gay hunting. Nor do I recall any instances of gays losing jobs, homes, etc due to a directive from Washington DC. Yes, the president (and me) and lots of other people do want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, but most of us are not averse to civil unions.

    But then the Perpetually Offended see slights everywhere.

  • Ymarsakar

    Rememeber the 2004 election, Book? Gay marriage became an important topic for debate between Bush and Kerry, including their respective camps. Gay aristocrats were outraged that the people of America could start thinking that it was they who could control gay rights and where it would lead. Instead of trusting in the courts and in the performance of elite lawyers and knowledgeable judges, the mob now gets their say and they backed George Bush. That is how the gay aristocrats saw it.

    That, of course, would only include the last 4 years, not the last 8.

    If I have the timing right, gay activists launched several court cases which generated controversy in Bush’s first term. The fact that this made gays have to defend their position in public and be exposed to the “people” and their hoi poi opinions meant that the gay aristocrats were obviously feeling besieged: besieged by their own strategies which started it all.

    It is an attack on gay equality to even argue about such things as if they have any relevance to Presidential power or the democratic power of the people.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Let’s not forget Cheney’s spirited defense of his lesbian daughter, Mary.

  • Charles Martel

    “Dignity” and “equality” these days are Alice-in-Wonderland words that mean whatever the speaker says they mean.

    It is one thing to strip a man of his dignity, such as subjecting him to ridicule or making him a spectacle. But it is another when a man’s own actions strip his dignity from him. So many gay activists are undignified in the ways that tantruming children or petulant teenagers are. Add to their sullen disposition a host of silly body movements and verbal tics and you’ve got dignity gone on permanent sabbatical.

    The equality argument is a classic fallacy that takes place in a vacuum. For example, this was the state of the argument for homosexual “marriage” before any black-robed judicial magicians had emanated and penumbra-ed that new right out of whole cloth:

    — “Gays should be equal when it comes to X.”

    — “Therefore, gays ARE equal when it comes to X.”

    — “Therefore, how dare you assault gay equality?”

    I don’t think Alinsky invented the tactic of jumping from assertion to presumption in a short time without anything actually happening in between, but it’s a tactic that the radical gay movement loves.

    The silver lining here is that a great number of Americans, even including some liberals, are getting real sick of the whiners and complainers. If there’s ever a second Civil War, the two countries that will emerge in its aftemath will be called Original Recipe and Debbie Downerland.

  • Tiresias

    No, you didn’t miss something – you didn’t miss anything.

    What you have done is very alertly spot history in the process of being revised right before your very eyes.

    By tomorrow the pigs on ladders will have changed the slogans on the barn walls – but what am I saying, “changed?” They have always been that way! They have always said that!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Lest one jump to conclusions, not all gays are pro-gay marriage, by the way. And many of those that are pro-gay marriage have a very different definition of what “marriage” means (e.g., group sex is part of a healthy marital relationship).

    I used to enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan (gay, former conservative Brit emigre to the U.S.). He was all pro-Bush, pro-Iraq etc. blah, blah, blah until that famous day when Bush would not speak out in favor of gay marriage. All of a sudden, Sullivan did a 180 on Iraq, Bush, and every other policy supported by Bush. That’s one unbalanced dude that I think symbolizes much of what is going on in the radical gay community.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, I used to like Sullivan, too. You’re right, he went around the bend over the issue of gay marriage and has not been coherent since.