We're in complete agreement on this Michael. It wasn't enough that she had to waste so many precious minutes during the LOGO forum last year babbling about herself, her feelings, and the New Mexican bark beetle, now she's back to show us once again that she's, as she calls herself, "a privileged rock star" and really has little or no clue about what life is like for those of us not on the Queer A-list.

Her music is great. She should stick to what she does best and leave the punditry to those far more capable and well-informed and far less self-centered and insulated from average working class LGBT's than she is.

Furthermore, the media needs to stop going to celebrity dilettantes for these things and make the same effort to involve those who are actually qualified to speak on the relevant issues in our lives as they do for non-LGBT topics.

Michael,

I agree, 100%.

Melissa and Tammy are an embarrassment to our community. This tendency for queers to lapse into accommodation mode the moment a homophobe shakes our hand or drapes their arm around us, is scary.

Of course, I blame Obama. He had thousands of pro-gay men and women of the faith he could've asked to perform the invocation but he chose Rick Warren.

I am much more measured about Obama now and more inclined not to trust him and it's not just Rick Warren.

His "O"-Ness chose Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine to head up the DNC. A very troubling choice. Kaine is not only against gay marriage -- he's opposed to civil unions! He's opposed to abortion and stem cell research too.

It looks like we're in for a long four years, as Obama runs decisions past his BFF, Rick Warren, to see if they pass the smell test of the religious right.

Not good, my friend. Not good.

I started reading, but stopped at "shut up and sing". This reminds me of what the über-conservatives were saying when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks denounced Bush during a concert. (Isn't "Shut Up and Sing" the name of a documentary about the incident and its backlash?)

She has the right to say what she wants, you have the right to post what you want on your blog but the difference between the two is that you're trying to stifle another point of view.

I don't agree with that point of view, but I won't tell someone who does to shut up.

"I know it is not my place to tell Melissa Etheridge when she can and cannot speak..."

But you're going to do it anyway, right?

"I know that we ask that famous LGBT come out of the closet, but we should also ask that if they speak publicly about issues that effect our lives that they work with political organizations on messaging."

So they can toe the official party line, or else?

"Have (sic) gay celebs like Melissa Etheridge making excuses for anti-gay leaders like Rick Warren does us no good."

Hold it a minute! It wasn't Melisa Etheridge who invited Warren to speak at the inauguration, it was Barack Obama. I suspect that you find it easier to attack Melissa on this issue than your Messiah because you can relieve yourself of the anger and betrayal you feel without having to admit that you might have been wrong about Obama.
In any case, none of this would be an issue if Obama actually respected the separation of church and state our constitution requires and refused to have an invocation, or convocation, by any clergyperson, left, right, or center. But he's made it clear that he believes that religion has a place in public life (i.e., politics), just like Shrub. I hope all you who voted for him are ready for four more years of this!

Melissa Etheridge, nor any GLBT celebrity, should be the spokesperson for GLBT rights. She lives in a completely different world than the rest of us, so she doesn't have a clue.

Ever since the Logo forum, I'm beyond convinced that whenever Melissa opens her mouth, it's for self-promotion only, and that's it.

I'd appreciate it if she'd stick with talking about things she's actually familiar with: music, or breast cancer survivors. Melissa would be useful in those conversations, but not when it comes to us average non-celeb GLBT folks.

Re: "we should also ask that if they speak publicly about issues that effect our lives that they work with political organizations on messaging"

As a "LBGTQ", I enjoy being able to form my own opinions (without having to consult with a central organization first) and being able to express them.

I would not want to deny such pleasures even to celebrities.

I would recommend -- without demanding that you do so -- that you cease expecting every utterance by every individual who belongs to the same special interest group as yourself to express the lockstep opinions that you would wish them to.

Curious Michael;
President-elect OBama selects Warren and you want the dogs called off; Etheridge speaks out on behalf of Warren and you want her to shut up.

I think that she is wrong about Warren, but I wonder if your pique has to do with her being a Lesbian?

It's infuriating that you would tell someone that because she is a lesbian and famous that she has to be YOUR spokesperson and cannot express her own views on an issue.

This is exactly what I hate about the whole idea of "coming out" in the first place, not just for famous people. Not only do you expect people to "be honest" about their sexuality (meaning, use the vocabulary prescribed by the activist community to describe their deepest feelings and most intimate relationships), you expect them to conform to your strict notion of what it means to be "gay," including which opinions one may hold, which candidates one may vote for, which political parties one may join.

And then you're surprised people like Anderson Cooper don't want any part of it?

Not saying this was Obama’s intention, but bringing Rick Warren to light on the inaugural platform presents an opportunity for dialog and, possibly, reconciliation with an awful (no pun intended) lot of people.

HELLooooOOOO!!

Regardless of who speaks, religion has no place nor right to preach at a civil state function. If people wish to believe in an invisible man, that's there right. This is supposed to be a Republic not a Theocracy and religion should not be tolerated in civil politics. While freedom of religion is a right, it should not be allowed to use Government to control the masses nor should the government be used to control citizens. Religion's only purpose is to put power in the hands of those who seek power. Remember all religions are created by and run by man; and thus cannot be perfect in any way.
Peace and love,
Tammi Dee Voytek

Personally, I agree with Melissa. You attract more flies with honey that vinegar.

Perhaps we're spending too much time demonizing Rick Warren than approaching and lobbying him into changing his views. Think of how powerful he could be as an advocate for our community. After all, if it worked for the Apostle Paul... :)

According to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration

"According to tradition, in the first inauguration, President Washington added the words "so help me God" when reciting the oath, although there is no contemporary evidence of this. However, the only contemporaneous source that fully reproduced Washington's oath completely lacks the religious codicil.[3] Given that nearly every President-elect since President Franklin Roosevelt has recited the codicil, it is likely that the majority of presidents-elect have uttered the phrase (as well as some vice presidents, while taking their oaths). However, as President Theodore Roosevelt chose to conclude his oath with the phrase "And thus I swear," it seems that this current of tradition was not overwhelmingly strong even as recently as the turn of the twentieth century. Only Franklin Pierce has chosen to affirm rather than swear.[4] It is often asserted that Herbert Hoover also affirmed, because he was a Quaker, but newspaper reports prior to his inauguration state his intention to swear rather than affirm.[5]"

This entry goes on to note that there is no requirement in the Constitution that the Bible be used for the swearing in. It is merely customary, or as you prefer, traditional, but not constitutional. (Apparently you don't study history, either.) Politics and religion may be traditional in this country, but so is homophobia/transphobia traditionally an expression of the union of the two, and I know that's not a tradition you want to continue. Keep reigion out of politics and you're half way there to full equality for LGBT people. The religious right understands this well enough; Barack Obama doesn't.

I wonder if working with a nonprofit would have helped her in this situation. There are a lot of folks who work for them who don't see the point in this rick warren situation either.

I think that the issue of what sort of rhetoric we valorize and what sort we impede and silence (which both happen on a regular basis and can't be avoided) is a bit too abstract for some people in the community.