Oh, Cry Me A River...

Barney Frank. Now, I freely admit, up front, that when I lived in Massachusetts some time ago, I voted for Frank, more than once. At that time, he was not one of the Old Boys Club, he was not an establishment guy. He sure as heck is NOW, as he has proven with the whole mortgage fiasco, and his connections with Fannie and Freddie. It is hard to take him seriously now, is my point.

And now, Barney Frank is joining all the rest of us who went under the bus ages ago:

The first openly gay member of Congress said Sunday it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

"Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a broadcast interview.

"If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing," Frank said. "But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect."

No, really, ya think?? Hell to the yes, it is "wrong" to give Rev. Warren this "mark of respect" given his personal views on homosexuality. But my question to YOU, Rep. Frank is: What in the world from anything Obama has done in terms of our community made you think that he GIVES A DAMN if this is an insult to the GLBT community?? Maybe before you threw your weight behind him, you could have actually looked at to whom Obama turned for support, and who he counted as his close friends. Heck, look who he chose to take with him on the campaign trail, and you are SURPRISED???

As if any of the reality based people need this information, here it is again:

Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California megachurch, is a popular evangelical who stresses the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes.

But gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election, are angry over Warren's backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

Although Warren has said that he has nothing personally against gays, he has condemned same-sex marriage.

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

Oh, how in the WORLD could I take THAT personally?? Child abuse? INCEST?? Why, there is nothing at all negative about THOSE connotations, right?? Yet he tries to claim he has nothing "personal" against us? Well, Rev. Warren, I respectfully (though you have been anything but with the GLBT community) disagree. Maybe you are trying Obama's tact of saying one thing and doing another, like not allowing gay people to attend your church, but saying you have nothing against us. No offense, Reverend, but you seem to be woefully ignorant of basic Scripture, both Hebrew Scriptures AND Christian Scriptures. Maybe you oughta go take a little look-see at what Jesus said about loving one's neighbor. Or take another look at the Good Samaritan story (Luke, chapter 10, verses 25–37).

At the time, Samaritans were DESPISED by the dominant culture. That a Samaritan reached out to someone who considered Samaritans to be the lowest of the low is kind of like a Drag Queen paying to take care of Jerry Falwell, had he been the one found in the road.

In other words, sir, you seem to have missed the point of the ministry Jesus exemplified. IMHO, that is.

But Barney better be careful, or else Obama will label HIM as intolerant:

Obama defended the selection of Warren last week, telling reporters that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Oh, yes - by all means - we should happily embrace and support those who equate us to CHILD MOLESTORS and incest perpetrators! Obama seems to be a bit unclear on what it means to expect people to "come together." I dare say, if this was ANY OTHER COMMUNITY, he would not expect us to embrace our oppressors. Never, ever, would he pick someone who was antisemitic, or racist, nor SHOULD he. But he has NO qualms doing so to the GLBT community, and expects us just to take it. In other words, Obama's interpretation of "coming together" is just more of the same. No freakin' thank you. So much for "change we can believe in." The only change is the redefinition of "Change." The offense is still the same.

So, welcome to the reality based world, Rep. Frank, the one in which we know people actually SHOULD be judged by their associations and close friends. It really does help to give a window, or in Obama's case, a DOOR, into who he really is. And the one through which we could all see that Obama didn't, DOESN'T, give a damn about the GLBT community. Sad, but true - it was there to see all along...

Maybe you shouldn't have leaned on Clinton for an early exit, Rep. Frank. I bet you know that now. We, of course, knew it then, but you caved. And now you are surprised? Spare me. You knew the best one was Clinton, but you pressured her out of the race, and paved the way for Obama's rule-breaking ascent. And now you are crying about how he is treating us? Cry me a river, Rep. Frank. You enabled it.