« Conflict in Gaza | Main | Slippery walking in KC »

January 08, 2009

Inaugural pastor’s ‘bigotry’

The Star published three letters (1/4) attacking Mary Sanchez’s column (12/30, Opinion) in which she criticizes Barack Obama’s choice of Rick Warren as his inaugural chaplain, based on Warren’s opposition to gay marriage. Warren’s bigotry is dismissed as “honoring” marriage.

Warren is free to bless or not bless the loving unions of same-sex couples under his religion as he sees fit. Many Christian leaders do extend such a blessing, and many, including Warren, the Pope and Fred Phelps, do not. But, insofar as he supports denying gay couples equality under our nation’s laws, it’s not a question of “honoring” marriage but of whether we Americans should condone treating a segment of our population as second-class citizens under the law.

As a theological controversy, let the religious leaders debate all they want, but as a legal and moral issue, the course is clear. Denying gay couples the same legal rights and protections as straight couples is anti-family, immoral, and anti-American, just as was denying blacks the right to equal education based on their race or denying women the right to vote based on their gender.

This legal discrimination is shameful, and as Americans, we should fight to change it.

Chris Dudding
Kansas City



Pubic why aren't you at the beach with your beach buddies? You STILL didge the question of what your profession is. Typical liberal chicken sh**.


Hey wannabe white boy,

When have you ever heard me defend revs Sharpton or Wright?

Trudy, I'm trying to play nice but this guy is nutz.

Pub 17

I forgot: after Nice Guy's display of true drunken psychosis the other night, I promised myself I wasn't going to poke sticks at the kid in the mental wheelchair anymore. There's really something wrong here, if only an inability to keep himself off the blogs when hammered.

Consider yourself officially patronized.


Sol it should perfectly legal and acceptable for two dudes to play grabcroch in public in front of children.
The real bigot are worthless phony reverends like Al Sharpton and "Rev" Wrong.
Talk about bigots and racist.



....and bombs given to Israel to bomb women and children are considered aid, wordsmith, you know, welfare to people who don't pay US income tax.

If you use definitions here please be consistent in your bigotry.

Pub 17

Make up your pinheaded mind, Fragge. Do gays have equal rights or not? And don't you have any friends who could tell you that those shoes are a complete disaster with that purse?


Hey Toop Train Chaser bouncing (pun intended) back and forth between two blogs today! Man you are losing money big time, the train is leaving the station!


Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman in every public vote in every state where it has been on the ballot. It will continue to be unless some activist judge usurps the rule of the people.

Pub 17

Anybody out there play for the other team? You now have EXACTLY equal rights, because Nice Guy the Racist Creep has set y'all free. And Officer Frag agrees, so you need to get yourselves down to City Hall for that marriage license before this window of opportunity slams shut.



What you call special rights will come about in time, as our society changes.


I agree. There is no connection to gay marriage and polygamy in any fashion. If two men or two women want the legal rights that a heterosexual couple have it harms no one or the institution of marriage.

How can it hurt a heterosexual couple in Blue springs if a gay couple in Oak Grove want the same legal rights a marriage affords?

I predict there will be "civil unions" and eventually legal marriages between gays.


Right you are No Mo. It is "my eception to the rule is perfectally acceptable, because it is mine". Pretty shallow thought process.


Phelps is a hater, the Pope is not. My only point there.


Gays have the EXACT same rights as any other citizen. They are asking for special considerations.


Solomon, both the pope and Fred Phelps oppose gay marriage. Please explain what is ridiculous about pointing that out.


mianotkia - Are you kidding me? You are comparing a loving union between two adults (the same as heterosexual marriage) to polygamy?

You would be ridiculous to compare polygamy to gay marriage. We are talking about the SAME RIGHT as heterosexuals have: the right to legally marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, with all of the tax breaks and legal rights that heterosexuals have.

No one is talking about polygamy. This is about the basic, human right to be partnered with whom you love.


I find it interesting that a segment of society has attempted to redefine marriage to suit their particular variable, i.e. same sex unions. They, of course, immediately discount any other variable, for example why not multiple spouses, or unions of three? Surely there is a segment of society that would be for the "civil rights" of thouse particular unions as well?


I think it is ridiculous to mention the Pope and Phelps together, even though when the John Paul passed it was obvious in the letter section how much anti-Catholic bigotry there is.


Eloquently put, Mr. Dudding. I strongly agree on all points. I think the issue for both sides now is to look forward, past the inauguration and its participants. Obama's choice of Warren may have been flawed, or it may have been a conscious choice to include a person whose views are not perfectly aligned with his platform. The proof of our confidence lies in the future actions of Obama's administration, not in Rick Warren's five minutes of limelight at the Capitol. Continue the fight for equality and let Warren fade from the headlines. Futurists and political analysts are saying the fight will be won -- and likely in the lifetimes of most of us. I, for one, am taking up that flag of hope.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright