Rick Warren take responsibility or apologize! I won’t hold my breath.
Hey Steven. How about an interview with the Rev. Dr. Mel White of Soulforce to balance your interview with Rick Warren. Ever hear of him or Soulforce? Can’t believe that you haven’t. I sent you an email about this a few days ago. http://www.Soulforce.org

That’s great Rick. Glad to hear homosexual marriage isn’t the same a incest. Just wondering if you wouldn’t mind providing some kind of a chart to show just where it ranks on your pyramid of disgust. Imagine it’s above pedophilia, but below common law marriage.
Who’s he kidding here? The guy has a history of discrimination towards homosexuals. It’s not as though he simply disagrees with gay marriage here. Let’s remember homosexuals are explicitly not allowed at his church. Glad to see he’s getting all huggy with stars like Melissa Ethridge, but whether he punches at the LGBT community with brass-knuckles or a velvet-glove, he’s still lobbing blows. This “clarification” only diminishes his stature, and probably does nothing to satisfy his critics on either side of the aisle.

To everything,
Spin, Spin, Spin,
There is a season,
Spin, Spin, Spin…

Three questions:
If this issue were not a media triple play of sex, religion and politics how much news coverage and blogsphere chatter would it generate?
Why wasn’t this outrage expressed last summer when Barack Obama agreed with Rick Warren during the presidential forum at Saddleback that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a women?
When Rick Warren repeatedly said last summer that Obama was his friend, how did people figure that the President-elect wouldn’t return the favor?

Steven: agree with you 100%.
I think, ultimately, Warren’s appearance at the Obama event is a good thing, and I think Warren’s explanation is lame.

Curious – how would someone at Saddleback know another person is gay to be able to exclude them from the church? Do they wear signs that say, “I’m gay” or what?

Rick Warren says: “In that interview I named several other relationships. In fact I’ve done it several other times. I’ve named other relationships such as living together or a man with multiple wives…. I don’t think any of them should be called marriage.”
The Bible Says in 1 Samuel 25:39-44:
“When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Praise be to the LORD, who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. He has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal’s wrongdoing down on his own head.”
Then David sent word to Abigail, asking her to become his wife. His servants went to Carmel and said to Abigail, “David has sent us to you to take you to become his wife.”
She bowed down with her face to the ground and said, “Here is your maidservant, ready to serve you and wash the feet of my master’s servants.” Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, attended by her five maids, went with David’s messengers and became his wife. David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives. But Saul had given his daughter Michal, David’s wife, to Paltiel son of Laish, who was from Gallim.”
Now…the Bible uses wife and married here very clearly. Three women are named as being wives of David. Would Rick Warren refuse to call this relationship marriage?

While Steve used the word disappointed with Warren, I will use the clearer word. Warren blatantly lied about his comparison of homosexuality to incest, etc. Warren is getting it from both sides. Many Evangelicals are hitting him hard over Obama’s pro-choice stance.
How about an interview with Rev. Dean Snyder, Foundry United Methodist Church (UMC) in Washington D.C.? Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford Hayes, William Clinton and his family regularly attended Foundry. http://www.foundryumc.org/
Rev. Snyder, who is straight, recently told his congregation he would preside over services that “recognize and honor” gay couples in committed relationships. Rev. Snyder and other UMC Pastors have been trying to work around the UMC rules preventing marriage ceremonies.
He said the services are not marriage ceremonies, but allow “us to gather as a congregation, and as family and friends of a couple, and say we recognize your commitment and we honor it.”
The United Methodist Church has been fighting over the issue of homosexuality for many years. Even though they say homosexuality is not in accordance with the Bible, all people are welcome at a United Methodist Church. Many United Methodist pastors support civil unions or marriage for gays.
Foundry’s Statement of Reconciliation:
We, the friends and members of Foundry United Methodist Church, hold deeply our commitment to help bring about a peaceful, loving, just and accepting world. We are proud of our active, diverse congregation and have seen how each person has graced our community with his or her talents. We believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in all.
We acknowledge our oneness with all of God’s creation and invite gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to share our faith, our community life, and our ministries. We also affirm the same for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, economic status, or physical or mental condition.
We seek to be an inclusive congregation, and we proclaim our commitment to seek the reconciliation of all persons to God and to each other through Jesus Christ.
As we journey toward reconciliation with all, we proclaim this statement of welcome to all, including our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters: God loves you and we love you, we affirm you, and accept you, we treasure you. We welcome you.
At the same time, we recognize that there remain differences of opinion among us on issues relating to sexuality. We do not seek to erase our differences, but to journey together in faith toward greater understanding and mutual respect.
In becoming a Reconciling Congregation we believe that we are being reconciled to God and to one another.

Julie, unless GLBT are as free in equality as you and I are they are not integrated into all the citizens of the United States of America. When the United Methodists say we accept GLBT and some of us will allow a blessing of committment to gay couples; it is dividing and insulting. If we had a son who was gay I would not accept this at all. We left a United Methodist Church because my addressing this issue in sunday school class was like breaking a glass aganist the wall. We are about to try a UCC Church who is accepting of equality for GLBT, at least that is what we were told.

The unfortunate thing is that Warren’s need to “clarify” his comments and his obvious obfustication trivializes all of his good works. And it renders any complaints he has against the lgbt community null and void.

Henrietta22,
The United Methodist Churches can vary widely depending on the Pastor and congregation. The pastor of my church demonstrated with the gays at the church convention. The 20 year old daughter of a long time active member is open about being gay.
Jim Winkler, head of Social Justice, wrote a rather angry letter after the May 2008 conference that voted down changes to the stance on homosexuals. Winkler said it may take a few more years until the older members are replaced by the younger generation to finally get the change for the statement on homosexuals.
List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality From Wikipedia
Not sure how current the information is, I know the Presbyterian church voted last summer to allow ordaining homosexuals. Obama belonged to a UCC Church. The website below says it varies by church for the UCC.
http://tinyurl.com/97cxbp

So, is Warren now claiming that he simply was engaging in tautology? I mean, I agree that we wouldn’t call a man and a woman living together a marriage.
That just means he dodged the question.
The real question is a more complex one and perhaps someone will get Warren to answer it.
Ought same-sex couples have the right to obtain a civil marriage license and all the benefits that derive from civil marriage?
Of course, the other thing that Warren should be challenged on is his distorted history of marriage. Marriage has a long history as a matter of civil law, not religious practice.

Steven said:
>> Perhaps he really meant that they were equivalent only in the sense that none of them should be called marriage. But that’s certainly not the most obvious interpretation.
–
That certainly is the most obvious meaning of what he said in the context of that interview.
Come on, Steven, did you truly think he meant to say that pedophilia and incest were lesser threats to the family than divorce?
Because that’s where your thinking would take you.
* * *
Besides, when it comes to pedofillia and incest, the marriage law draws boundaries around the core meaning of marriage, which is a sexualized type of relationship. The marital presumption of paternity makes this so. And all who enter marriage must consent to this legal presumption. Also, the man-woman criterion is a legal requirement. Both of these things are vigorously enforced throughout the marriage laws.
So when related people come for a license, they are presumed to be entering a sexualized relationship type.
Likewise, the age limitations, which vary both from one jurisidction to another and within each jurisdiction, presumes sexual relations are essential to the social institution of marriage. Think about some of the various accomodations that are made which are expressed euphemistically in terms of pregnancy or the potential for pregnancy. The capacity to consent is not the capacity to love but to form a sexualized relationship with contingency for responsible procreation.
However, the boundaries against related people and regarding age are very weakened, if not invalidated, by the argumentation of the same-sex marriage advocates — both in the courts, in the legislatures, in forums like this, and in the street protests.
When SSMers (those who advocate for same-sex marriage aka SSM) argue against the centrality of procreation in marriage, they use certain rules.
1. That if (fill-in the blank) is not lawfully mandatory, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.
2. That if (fill-in the blank) can occur or exist outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.
There is no requirementn for same-sex sexual relations — anyplace that SSM has been imposed or enacted. And, of course, same sex sexual relations can, and does, occur outside of SSM. So the rules destroy the sexual aspect of the relationship type that SSMers are talking about.
Minus sexual relations, why would society prohibit equal treatment of related people? Not all related people, mind, but just some subset.
And, regarding age of consent, let’s be clear about what SSMers believe that people mutually consent to when they enter SSM. It can’t be sexual relations because there is no lawful requirement.
It can’t be the marital presumption of paternity for that is not based on whatever sexual behavior might occur in an all-male or in an all-female arrangement.
It is not about concerns regarding equality between the sexes, since the one-sexed arrangment is definitively sex-segregative. It is not about responsible procreation, or any kind of procreation, within the arrangement since no one-sexed scenario can be procreative — without the other sex.
So we must take the sex out of the argument.
Doing so makes the clear distinction between marriage and nonmarriage very, very, very fuzzy.
We can’t point to taboos, since that has been dismissed by SSMers as bigoted and hateful. We can’t point to public morality in the law, since that too has been abolished through SSM argumentation’s attack on the core meaning of the conjugal relationship type. In fact, we can’t point to tradition either, for the same reason.
But maybe the SSMers in this forum can explain the core meaning of marriage around which the boundaries are drawn?
You could start with the “most nefarious” types of relationships and explain what makes them so. And then explain how mutual commitment, love (what kind of love?), intimacy (what kind of intimacy), and so forth can never apply to those obvious types of nonmarital relationships.
Actually, incest is a good example to raise because once you take the sex out of marriage, then, you remove the objection to related people.
I mean, you are talking about destroying the difference between marriage and nonmarriage such that society need not consider two siblings or a mom-daugher arrangement to be sexually incestuous. In fact, today, if a brother and sister managed to get a license to marry, their relationship would be invalid without the lawful requirement to prove they had even touched each other. They could be in a nonsexual arrangement – with mutual commitment, familial love, and still be deemed nonmarital.
There is no sexual orientation test, either, so you can’t complain that the incest prohibition is anti-gay. If anything, it applies because it is based on the both-sexed nature of marriage.
* * *
Steven also said:
>> [Warren] did make it clear that he doesn’t believe gay relationships are the moral equivalent of incest etc.
–
Wrong.
He said they were not the same thing. He teaches the sexual ethics of Scripture and he addressed his congregation who understand what he has taught for three decades. And in the context of the Bible, incestuous behavior is morally equivalent to same-sex sexual behavior. It is categorized among other sexual transgressions such as bestiality and fornication and, yes, pedofillia.
Now, you may disagree with the sexual ethics of Scripture, but Warren is not wrong for accurately representing it.
* * *
There is more to respond to but I’ll wait for awhile to continue.

Mr. Warren made no “clarification”; he attempted (poorly) to ‘spin’ this and blame “the media”. He denied saying what he actually said, and now wants to save his sorry ass for saying them – because he knows in his heart that they were hurtful and, because they were not only unkind but untrue, they are considered by many to be hateful.
You could visibly see him choking on his words, swallowing guiltily in shame over having got caught saying despicable things about God’s gay and lesbian children.
What a weasel.

Your Name,
You ask a very important question and preface it with one of the biggest misconceptions…
“Why wasn’t this outrage expressed last summer when Barack Obama agreed with Rick Warren during the presidential forum at Saddleback that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a women?”
I am (we are) not “outraged” when people believe what their faith has taught them. I, as a gay man, (legally married, btw) am okay with people’s personal beliefs – so long as I am allowed my own personal beliefs in return. (Go read any of the Crunchy Con blogs where if you don’t share the anti-gay beliefs, you’re treated like a pariah or banned for speaking your mind.)
What we are – rightfully, imho – “outraged” about is the constant comparisons to incest, pedophila, being called a “cancer”, comparing our relationships to “marrying a plant” (or an animal – aka beastiality), an “orange”, a “rock”, a “biciycle”, to cannibalism, necrophilia, etc. These things are not true (aka the bearing of false witness, aka a lie, aka a sin) and are so intrinsically offensive as to cause outrage – I believe it is often done on purpose so the offenders think they can get away with saying, ‘See, they won’t let me have my freedom of religion.’
I call it BS because it is BS. Warren’s claims are hurtful and untrue.
I’ll dissect Chairm’s nonsensical claims in a later post in depth, but I’ll take this opportunity to remind him that procreation isn’t a requirement of marriage (nor is it “lawfully mandatory” nor “essential to the conjugal relationship” – and s/he well knows it.

Obama has said he believes in giving gays all the legal rights given provided by a marriage. I think Obama would be for gay marriages, except he knows the political fall-out. Maybe during his second term.

What Warren said is not untrue and ought not to be claimed as hurtful. If you can’t stomache the truth, then, whine all you like about preferring falsehoods. But don’t blame Warren for your upset stomache.
* * *
“Husband” has not returned to do as he promised to do in his last comment.
I do note that “Husband” invoked the special pro-SSM rule that I had already noted:
-> > procreation isn’t a requirement of marriage (nor is it “lawfully mandatory” nor “essential to the conjugal relationship”
I note the pro-SSM rule:
-> > 1. That if (fill-in the blank) is not lawfully mandatory, then, it is not essential to the conjugal relationship type.
As I noted earlier, if you can cite the legal requirements that define the core meaning of gay union, please do so.
I don’t think you will find there is a gay requirement, nor a same-sex sexual behvior requirement, nor a sexual attraction requirement, nor any requirement that makes anything mandatory that could not be satisfied by related people, previously married people, and by socially mature but sexually immature young people.
If you depend on the modern tradition of romance, then, you can’t keep knocking tradition, custom, and the longstanding meaning of marriage.
If you choose to stand on some sort of social taboo, such as against some related people, then, you need to state that taboo without advocating some kind of public sexual morality. Besides, there is nothing that makes same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for gay union so don’t be so purient in your objections to some related people. Or based on age. There are some very immature people, socially, well past the age of majority; and there are some very mature people, socially if not physiologically, well under the age of majority. Chronological age is thus a poor proxy. That is, if we adopt the pro-SSM arugments about the man-woman criterion being overinclusive and underinclusive.
Lots there for “Husband” to chew on and try to digest without upsetting fellow SSMers.
“Husband” is probably like most advocates of SSM. The lack of a core meaning for gay union is supposed to be the basis to urge society to gut marriage of its core meaning. So they retreat to some private notion of marriage even thought they insist on a public relationship with public licensing and public meaning.