Tweet
Surf over to Mike’s pad to hear the audio of Melissa Etheridge on his show discussing her new BFF Rick Warren, and celebrities and politics. From the transcript:
MS: It sounds like you really didn’t get a lot of information about this…and find out what his views really were…Did you connect with the Human Rights Campaign [a group she with which she has worked] and other gay groups before making your decision?ME: No, I looked it up on the Internet. I tried to find what people were saying. I watched the beliefnet article, where he was asked about, “So gay marriage, is that like pedophilia and incest and stuff?” And I got to ask him, “So what’s that all about?” And he gave me his response. Now, again, I’m just going to take him on what he says –
MS: But can we take people on what they say when they’re working against us? Shouldn’t't we go by what their record is? We have seen that this man has empowered the very forces in Africa that have allowed people to become infected with HIV. He pushed abstinence-only programs, he helped to demonize gay people. There are gay people locked up in jail …because of Rick Warren…So shouldn’t we go by his record?…
ME: …Yes, absolutely we should. We should hold people accountable. Now, does that mean they are exiled from what we are trying to accomplish here, which is a united America? Or do we say, we see you now? You can’t be part of this party and hide that. I really want people to know that I’m not defending him.
Mike definitely holds her feet to the fire on this one. Go read the rest. I still don’t think she gets the problem people had with the Warren matter. She didn’t do her homework, and with her high profile, lobbed an uninformed opinion out there that Warren is actually reaching out to the community rather than her specifically to blunt the criticism he was receiving.
17 Comments
Stick to Music, MelissaDuring the Democratic candidates’ forum in summer 2007, and again in her inane comments about Warren, Melissa has demonstrated why it’s generally a good idea for people to stick to what they do best, and leave the rest to others.
A good post from Out in Hollywood:Akaison said:
What qualifies her to be a spokesperson for gays other than the fact she’s famous? I think the gay community needs a better caliber of people representing our interests.
She is not versed in the legal issues involving ENDA, DOMA, state marriage laws across the country, etc. She is not entrenched in the day to day of the politics at the local, state, federal and international level.
That’s my real problem with her. Not that she has an opinion- she’s entitled to that. What I have a problem with in the elevating of it as if it’s one versed in the subject matter.
Shouldn’t we have someone out there who knows, for example, that Warren supports an African Bishop abroad who sucessful ran a campaign to enact a Nigerian law to jail gays? Shouldn’t she know that part of the reason that the UN resolution to ban criminalization of homosexuality is partially based on protestation by men like Warren over their right to fire us less wealthy gays and throw us out of our homes? Does she care to know these things?
I have no problem with debate. But I want a real debate with people versed in the multitude of issues that we gays face. Not something that represents only the wealthy white gay segments of the gay communities. I want someone who knows , if they are going to debate Warren, that we want marriage over civil unions because in states like New Jersey – civil unions are proving in practice unequal and gays are still being denied the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals.
Does she know this? If not, why is she our spokes person other than being famous? I don’t blame her for this alone. I look at the visible gay community, and you would think we are all upper middle class and this is just an issue of acceptance rather than a real discussion about rights.
I have a running theory: one of the reasons Brokeback Mountain did so well is that it showed that gays in a light that the mainstream does not often get to see. In their minds, we do not suffer as much because they don’t want to see it, but also because we do not properly show it. Why aren’t couples, such as blue collar gays and lesbians, who suffer under civil unions or without any protection at all shown rather than Etheridge? Wouldn’t that be more useful?
http://www.insidesocal.com/out…
This is what happenswhen one narcissist (Melissa Etheridge) meets another (Rick Warren). Love at first sight.
I’m curious about something, Pam.Do you think it was a wrong move for her to meet with Warren and try to find common ground with him or is it mostly the fact that she’s not as informed about him as she could be that bothers you?
Melissa is not a typical gay AmericanNot Pam, but my $0.02:
1. Melissa Etheridge has no business being a spokesperson for the gay community in any forum because she has bought her way out of the legal ghetto in which the rest of us live. If she once knew our problems, she’s forgotten them. She’s a multimillionaire with a horde of lawyers to draft whatever legal protections she and Tammy and the kids need. Discriminatory housing, employment, inheritance, and taxation laws will not affect her the way they do the rest of us. She will never be denied entrance to the hospital room of her partner or children. She’s a white, wealthy, A-list celebrity in a position of privilege.
2. Melissa has a habit of going into a battle of wits unarmed. See her performance at the LOGO-hosted forum during the Presidential primaries for reference. She doesn’t do her homework, and can’t speak intelligently about the issues. Making buddy buddy with Rick Warren will not change his mind about gays, no matter how many of her albums he claims to like.
Melissa needs to stick to her day job and STFU about gay issues. She’s way out of her league when she tries to play.
Lord help her,she’s just not all that bright. That’s what it boils down to. Read her autobiography.
I agreeThey are all trying to play Jesus, Melissa, Warren and President Obama. Turn the other cheek and find love in each others heart. It doesn’t work that way as President Obama found out yesterday. Not one Republican signed his stimilous bill in the House and he tweaked it for them in order to be one big happy family. He will also find out that not all Muslims are peaceful women walking around in burkas afraid to open their mouths.
Amen!She is blinded by her own privilege. Yes, she’s a woman and gay, but she’s very rich and she sees the world from a every restricted POV. Ditto her nitwit partner whose blog was quote her not so long ago in which she showed off her ignorance and lack of logic trying to defend meeting Warren. They may hang out with Warren and get along, but that’s in the very unreal stratosphere in which they both live.
I mean, Melissa is rich enoughwhere she can pay someone to properly vet and inform her on Warren’s record, not simply a couple of soundbites. It’s th enot being prepared that gets to me.
If Warren is truly interested in bridging differences, then do Signorile’s show or be interviwed by Pam. Sit down and answer the tough questions and be prepared for the criticism. (The same applies for Ted Haggard, in this respect). I may agree with you, I am certain I would disagree with a lot, but I will give you a point or two for having the guts to sit down and go through it.
In talking with Melissa, Warren knew exactly what he was doing. Shame on Melissa for falling for this s**t.
Thank you!You pegged it! There’s a real streak of narcissism in hr writing about Warren. She’s painted herself as noble for apparently rising above other poor pathetic vengeful gays and lesbians. This is all about her and her goodness and understanding and insight.
I mayagree with you on a thing or 2 I mean. and:
“It’s the not being prepared…”
Time for that afternoon cup of java!
well said, KeoriThe nail on the head is that Etheridge’s comments reek of privilege. That doesn’t make her a horrible person or that she cannot “reach out” to Warren personally. The problem is that she is a public figure, a famous out gay person places her, unfortunately, in the position of being perceived as speaking for our community. She was up there at the LOGO debate sitting in a chair that could have been filled by a gay journalist who knew the issues deeply. Caring about the issues without knowing who you’re dealing with is a dangerous combination.
What’s sad is that she’s not really that naive — she’s well aware of the power of celebrity. She may have had good intentions in doing what she did with Warren but neglected to do her homework to realize that this dude was not the evangelical to cozy up to.
She was used, and deluded herself that because she and Tammy were personally treated right by the megapastor, that he gives a damn about the rest of us out here who have no rights. She was in WAY over her head.
another point that needs to be brought up over and over again in these debates is the belief that civil unions giving all the same rights (at the state level) are somehow equal to marriage. In CA, a gay couple MUST prove they share housing and have mixed finances in order to be legally qualified for a civil union. Now, what hetero couple is forced to prove they will live in the same house and have shared finances in order to get married? None. So, even at the state level there is nothing EQUAL about civil unions.
The govt will tell you they have to have these requirements in order to stop couples from “gaming” the system. They could just sign up for the benefits and not really be a “couple”. But, what stops heteros from getting married for the same reason?
Over her headAnd for her to be in over her head, Pam, is a long way, since she’s got such a big head, imagines herself so wise and understanding, and able to change Warren’s mind. She’s totally off-base. His views are a closed system, she cannot penetrate them. No, she’s not stupid, but she is naive, and she’s what they used to call “a useful idiot” because she makes Warren look good (or tries to).
we also can;t get married by a justice of the peaceor divorced in regular divorce court. in washington, we have to go to the secretary of state. you know, where you get tags for your car? we’re categorized under “corporations”. and no oath or affirmation is taken. you just submit a notarized paper. these differences seem tiny to people who can get married, but collectively they send the message that civil unions/domestic partnerships are a lower form of life than civil marriages. as if the name difference wasn’t enough to prove that point.
btw, the DP enhancement bill of 2009 just introduced in WA is 110 pages long. that, combined with the initial DP bill and the enhancement bill of 2008 total about 200 pages. all that legal text, and for what? to discriminate. whereas the working portion of marriage equality bill consists of one page.
OT- I wrote that commentIt’s funny to realize that others agree with me about it.
I really do think the problem is not just the bigots, but also our reaction to the bigots.
Why, for example, is a sex columnist being put out there to discuss what are social, religios, political and legal issues like he has the expertise to discuss them? (Dan Savage)
Why do we discuss these issues only from a 99 percent white, 99 percent upper middle class and 99 percent male perspective? I do not get that because so much of the reasons why people do not see us is that we leave them blind to it.
I am not foolish enough to think our using the right messaging alone would change things, but it would go along way to separating out the issues so that people could understand them beyond the abstraction that a singer provides. Again, no disrespect to her. But she’s not the proper spokesperson. Most of the people leading the movement aren’t. We need our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X who gets it.
And if she really wanted to helpwhy not push Warren to debate another pro-gay minister about the Bible. ie, push for a substantive exchange with someone who knows. So there is real dialogue versus just theatrics.