It is pointless to insist that Pastor Rick Warren be disinvited from the inauguration. Our concern is that Obama will put gays on the back burner as he seeks to make friends on the religious right, given how adamantly they reject our status as Americans with equal rights. LGBT folks are not upset because the President-Elect is reaching across political divides to bring the nation together; we fear the Borg-like program of the religious right to assimilate us and erase homosexuality from the face of the country.
We have at best a marginal place in Red State America. In trying to bridge the Red State/Blue State divide, will Obama leave us behind as an obstacle to national unity? LGBT people would be better off with a secure and well-defended place in a divided America than isolated in the back of the bus in a supposedly united country. We will protest fiercely and expose the fallacy that America can come together without our full inclusion. There can be no unity without a rejection of the politics of exclusion practiced by President Bush.
Obama needs to take clear and concrete steps between now and January 20th to demonstrate that he will not soft-peddle a strong commitment to our equality. His efforts at inclusion thus far have been off-balance and too late in coming. Empty rhetoric and a gay marching band are not enough. He needs to revitalize and expand Clinton’s executive orders on non-discrimination to include government contractors, after the Bush Administration has eviscerated the protections Clinton put in place. He needs to reverse the Bush rejection of the UN declaration against the criminalization of homosexuality. He needs to make high-level LGBT appointments. His cabinet has many virtues, but it does not authentically “look like America” with us left out. He needs to lobby for the Matthew Shephard bill and ENDA, and not wait passively for Congress to do all the heavy lifting for LGBT Equality.
Obama needs to enlist and empower his LGBT supporters to reassure the community that he is not putting us on the back burner. It’s a crisis of confidence, and Obama needs LGBT people to believe that we’re part of his team and we won’t be shunted aside to make room for Rick Warren, who would clearly like us to be shunted aside. Right now Obama is getting no vocal support from the LGBT intelligentsia. Give us something to hang our hat on, and we can be persuaded that Obama isn’t embracing the religious right at the cost of leaving us behind. He will need better LGBT advocates than baton-twirlers, however festive they may appear in their sparkles and spangles.
I honestly don’t believe the President-Elect intended to cause the pain he has inflicted on LGBT Americans in the week before Christmas. But he has grievously wounded loyal supporters, and needs to palliate the hurt he caused. It’s going to take more than putting Rick Warren on a stage to bring a broken nation together.
The one point you made that I’m not copmletely comfortable with is an LGBT appointment. I believe that each cabinet position should go to the most qualified person for the position, but obviously nobody should be rejected on the basis of sexual orientation. Clinton’s attempt to make his cabinet look like America caused some political grief as I recall, which wasn’t necessary.
you’re going to go to bed without any supper?
we will keep agitating until real change comes, just as we have been doing for 40 years now. America cannot be authentically united with 10% of the people shunted to the side.
From a perfectly objective standpoint, we are here:
<
p>Obama invites Rick Warren — LGBT says they are shunted to the side.
<
p>LGBT says Rick Warren should not be legitimized with this appearance, finding him to be illegitimate.
<
p>Thus, LGBT folks finds the more than 10% of Americans who share Warren’s view to be illegitimate in their ideologies.
<
p>Conclusion: LGBT folks would like to see more than 10% of people shunted to the side.
<
p>I totally agree that you need to agitate for change, but isn’t this the wrong battle to pick? The change through the courts has been successful in Mass and Conn, and I don’t doubt it will be successful in Cali too. The courts work well because people respect them, but this stuff going on with Warren is pretty divisive. Whether you’re right or wrong (and you’re right) if it’s authentic unity you’re looking for, this probably is the wrong route.
The goal is to be included, and the fear is that the honoring of those who would delegitimize us means we get shunted aside to make room for their sensibilites. We did not pick this fight, and no LGBT masterminds calculated a strategy based on a dispassionate risk/benefit analysis. It’s all too clear that we’re being made out by those who wish us ill to be the bad guys, as we were in the anti-Prop 8 protests. We fight for respect because when we stop fighting we lose.
How would you react if Obama selected one of the preachers who teach Catholicism is a cult? Would your outrage be shunting his followers aside?
…that he believed that Catholics were the “equivalent” of pedophiles, polygamists, and incest lovers?
<
p>Warren said that my gay friends are the equivalent of pedophiles. To me, that’s just as abhorrent as calling my black friends niggers. I hold contempt for both views equally. It’s really as simple as that.
<
p>I do not equate “reaching across political divides” to legitimizing bigots. Inviting David Dukes to the Presidential Inauguration as a major guest of honor would be unacceptable, so should Rick Warren be. Enough said.
<
p>I do not fear the borg-like bigots in their quest to “erase” us; we cannot be erased. I fear this president legitimizing those bigots and not doing enough to help us. I will not stand for either. If we do not speak loudly and forcefully against Obama and Warren on this matter, then we will not be able to force Obama to make good on holding our equal rights as an important part of his presidential administration. Simply put, we must show that we have the power to make Obama think our constituency of dedicated, hard-core democrats is is far more important than the evangelicals who, by and large, will never vote for us anyway – even if we give into their bigotry.
I didn’t say that inviting Warren was an acceptable way to reach across the divides. In theory that concept is laudable.
<
p>The right wing cannot “erase” us but they can seek to impose legal disabilities (no protection againast hate crimes, no protection against discrimination) and tormet us with their unrelenting hate so as to make our lives more difficult than need be. They would like to assimilate us, and view our existence as illegitimate.
<
p>This essay was written primarily to engage the Obama folks in helping their LGBT supporters make a case that we’re not being shunted aside. Obama will not disinvite Warren, so that’s a dead-end strategy. Right now as I see it, Obama has no LGBT advocates, and our “critics” as one might call them are taking the opportunity to taunt us (see above) which is making the divide deeper. I obviously don’t speak for everyone in the community (who could) but I’m trying to find common ground with the Obama team.
<
p>It is astonishing the amount of good will Obama has burned through with this one misstep.
Has anyone watched all the Rick Warren interviews on TV since this announcement?
<
p>I have. Rick Warren debates well, does it all with a smile and is giving the bigots new talking points such as when asked about Leviticus and it stating that lying with a man as one would with a woman is an abomination/but so is eating shellfish an abomination argument…Warren was quick to say that God gives us “three types of laws” and Leviticus speaks to them. However, “homosexuality is a breaking of God’s ‘morality law’ and eating shellfish is breaking God’s ‘civil law.”
<
p>Yeah it’s such a good idea to give this a-hole bigot a place of power and acceptance in the Inaugural Invocation and of course all of the podiums and soap boxes that come with that honor.
<
p>Yeah, Obama has our and our country’s best interest in mind. Maybe that is the silver bullet to LGBT Equality, we just need to honor men and women like Rick Warren more.
I think that tudor586’s other post on precisely those talking points is very useful here. Those talking points are almost incoherent. They boil down to: “God commanded this, but He didn’t really mean it. Once these kinds of Christians find themselves defending the indefensible in detail, they begin to sound like Rumsfeld describing progress in Iraq. The more they have to dive into the details, the less intellectually honest they sound.
<
p>That’s a very good thing, indeed.
As Rachel Maddow made the eloquent case on her show, this wouldn’t be the first time Obama ditched a controversial pastor for a matter like this in this campaign. When Obama announced his candidacy in Chicago, Wright was supposed to do the honors, but just a day or so before the speech, Obama’s people were prescient and decided Wright would be too controversial. If he could do it then, he can easily do it now.
<
p>
<
p>As far as I’m concerned – and I know many in the community will agree with me – there can be no common ground so long as Rick Warren or someone like him is on that stage doing the honors. We simply cannot legitimize bigots.
If Obama truly believes the grassroots matter and if the grassroots starts showing its opposition to Warren’s selection… for example, people express their oppositon through the transition website, then shouldn’t the President-elect find a way to make a different selection? Isn’t that what we should expect from him? Or is the “grassroots” going to accept its old place in the world.. there when the politicians need them, not there when they are not longer needed. (BTW, Rev. Peter Gomes would be a good selection to replace of Warren.)
Do you think…
<
p>
<
p>… that if David Dukes was the leader of a much much larger movement, however vile that movement itself was, he’d continue to find himself on the outside? That Rick Warren shares his bigotry with a much much larger slice of the American pie than does David Dukes is, sorry to break it to you, all the ‘legitimization’ Warren needs. Obama ‘gives’ him nothing. He’s already got it… and, should Hillary Clinton have been the inaugarated there’s no reason to believe she would not have invited someone different.
<
p>On a side note, I’m dismayed at the left. We’ve begun to adopt some of the more polarizing speech of the right. All across the left blogosphere I see rather hateful and vile language directed at Rick Warren. Some of it directed at his weight and other physical attributes. Others directed a the ‘borg-like bigots’ (presumably his followers). This is wrong. Perhaps he deserves it. I dunno. But I do know, or thought I knew, that we on the left were better than that. I get that you are angry. That’s no excuse for sinking into ugliness, mire and vitriol.
We’re not a monolith, as I know you know.
<
p>Which is why I’m sad. When I see patterns emerge over many blogs and unity building around vile behaviour, it saddens me. Few, it seems, wish to speak out. Many, it seems, want to wallow in childish name calling and explicit character assassination. It’s not just Rick Warren, it’s been directed towards Caroline Kennedy and others who’ve displeased a certain vocal segment of the left. It’s ugly and wrong. I’m not clean here either, I know, but I hope I never jumped from policy issues straight to character assassination like I’ve seen many on ‘the left’ do recently.
<
p>We may not be a monolith, but that doesn’t, it seems, immunize us from groupthink.
why do you think the lgbt’s are so pissed off at so many on the left? because so many on the left are groupthinking that it’s ok for the president-elect to shit on basic civil rights guarantees for us an not get in trouble for it. i don’t know why you should be surprised at the “vile behavior”. when one feels that your allies won’t even listen, what’s left? we see what obama is doing and the groupthink left as “vile behavior”.
you would invite David Dukes?
<
p>Because, I hate to burst your bubble, there really are that many racists out there, they just don’t dress up in white robes as often as they used to – metaphorically or otherwise. Unfortunately, it’s still considered tolerable to openly hate on gays in ways that it isn’t for African Americans and Jewish people. Thus, Rick Warren and his – according to you – legitimacy. I would point out to you that if Obama didn’t decide to invite a bigot, no one would have been complaining: it was Obama that made this decision and this outcry – as well as the legitimacy he’s choosing to give Warren – is purely his fault.
<
p>
<
p>Thus explaining why we on the left have constantly lost for decades. We lack a killer instinct. If you’re willing to continue to allow the Republicans to set the agenda even as they’re in the smallest of minorities (due to possibly making this country FUBAR), continue to spout that kind of drivel. The Republicans are out there to destroy us, our way of lives, and half of us are trying to have a tea party with them. This is not a friendly debate society; this is the battle for how we’re going to run this country, who gets to have civil rights and whether or not the middle and working class are going to be invited to the party. This is a battle over whether or not our federal government still gives an exception to murder in the first degree for insurance companies which, in almost all states, can deny health coverage based on preexisting conditions. And you’re ready for the discussion group.
<
p>What we need in this country, perhaps more than anything, is a little more vitriol on the left.
<
p>Way to put words in my mouth. Why don’t I just sit back and let you transcribe the conversation you think we’re having?
<
p>
<
p>Yup. That’s how I was raised. I got past it. Others aren’t as enlightened as I… and I’ll point out, you’re not entitled to snap your fingers and make everybody enlightened. Ya, that sux. But it is what it is. But continue to wallow in your rage and self-pity… I’ll wait… When you’re ready to move forward I’ll be your ally again.
<
p>
<
p>GOOD! I don’t want a killer instinct. We won’t be leftists if we had a killer instinct. It would destroy us as it is destroying the Republicans. You think it’s just a tool. I know it is a cheap path to destruction. We wouldn’t be able to lay claim to the legacy of Jesus, Gandhi and MLK if we worried too much about a killer instinct.
<
p>There are things in this world much much worse than losing elections… Being deserving of such lose is one of them.
<
p>
<
p>EPIC. LOSE.
<
p>When everyone has a killer instinct there will be little left to live for.
old-fashioned liberals stand by.
<
p>No thanks.
<
p>Thankfully, we don’t need everyone on board to do all the dirty work that must be done – fighting back against Republican hackery, lies and deception every step of the way. While being willing to fight may be hard work, I never worry about it or feel truly dirty because, at the end of the day, the truth is at our side. We never have to lie. But we do have to stand tall and fight back, using the facts and justice to pound Republicans over the head until their blue in the face.
<
p>
<
p>Tell that to the millions who’s lives have been destroyed over Iraq. Tell that to the people who die ever day because they don’t have health care or have bad health care. Talk about epic lose! Losing so many elections destroyed millions lives – and you’re apparently quite okay with that, so long as your honor is intact. No thanks.
<
p>We need to be tough if we are to be able to live and have things in life worth living for. If the past 8 years didn’t teach you that, I don’t know what will. There’s as little as 40 people in this country who can separate us from progress – and you want to make nice with these people, who would rip your heart out if it made their job any easier or it made their friends any money.
<
p>Let me not break your fragile reality, though. Your tea party may recommence. Us Epic Losers will make sure your life improves.
… how very precious.
<
p>I don’t expect you to realize that I been where you are now, saying the things you say now with your pride, rage and self-pity melding to an acid and feral desire to slug someone.
<
p>Nor do I expect you to realize that I hope you’ll be in my position someday, saying what I’m saying now. Not because I’ll be redeemed in your eyes (tho’, I will) but because the alternative is bitter and destructive hell that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
<
p>But right now, you are irrational with rage. You wouldn’t be picking fights with me, and you wouldn’t be making caricatures of Rick Warren, if you weren’t.
<
p>And you are not the sole and only bearer of truth. You have a glimpse of the truth. Rick Warren likewise has a glimpse, from a different angle. I can see a glimmer. How we choose to embrace that truth, whether as a tool or a justification, or as a beautiful thing to understand, is the measure of our character. Personally, I don’t think either you or Warren are doing all that well with the glimpses you’ve been given.
<
p>
<
p>And ‘standing up’ for gays to marry is going to change all that how? I’m sorry to break it to you, but in the hierarchy of things to fight for, Adam and Steve not being able to register at Macy’s and honeymoon in Vegas doesn’t even come close. Sorry. (I’m not particularly juiced about marriage overall, so there’s that: wife and I didn’t even marry until just before the birth of our second child and that was only at the urging of family. I have a hard time getting all that worked up about it…) In fact, I worry far more about the destroyed lives in Iraq and the healthcare issue than I do about same sex marriage.
<
p>As for losing elections, well… I can’t make people smart. As I’ve already mentioned, we can’t snap our fingers and magically confer enlightenment upon those holding us back. Believe me, I tried. But I also can’t feel comfortable, morally, by leaving them behind. That’s not right either. We win, they win but I can’t feel comfortable in a situation where we win and they loose. I don’t like it, but I have to keep trying. I sleep well at night, tho’, and in this way I wake up refreshed and ready to keep trying.
<
p>
<
p>If you knew me, you’d be ashamed at lecturing me about what’s ‘tough’. And you’re tepid ‘tea parties’ and ‘fragile reality’ strawmen aren’t anywhere close to what I was talking about. If you think that weak and timid is the opposite of ‘killer instinct’ then you got some harsh lessons coming to you.
<
p>Sometimes, being tough is swallowing disappointment and moving forward. Sometimes, what’s tough is meeting your enemy over tea and invocations and looking at ’em eye to eye. Sometimes, tough is just sucking it up and dealing without picking fights and splashing your self-pity and aggrandizing anger across the blogosphere.
with being an instinctual killer, i think. btw, jesus, ghandi and mlk all had the killer instinct – they knew what was just and they didn’t waver from its pursuit. didn’t flinch. didn’t shut up. took direct action.
.
<
p>
<
p>I think I know what it is you are, hamhandedly, attempting to articulate. I think, however, that Jesus, Gandhi and MLK all would recoil in absolute horror upon hearing that phrase directed at them.
<
p>Jesus, Gandhi and MLK were all ‘righteous’. That is to say, they had a right relationship to the truth; which relationship stiffened their spines and moral resolve and allowed them to push forward, act justly and bear suffering and setback. This is not the same thing as ‘killer instinct’ which has everything to do with pushing forward and quite nothing at all to do with acting justly and bearing sufferings and setbacks.
Keep some perspective. We won a lot of victories this year. More will come. Nobody’s hanging you out to dry, we’re just saying hey, I support you, and keep working, but don’t expect Obama to drop the economy and war in Iraq and make gay marriage his #1 issue this year. After 8 years of Bush we’re in a triage situation.
<
p>Nobody cares about Rick Warren. I guarantee he doesn’t say the word “gay” during his speech. He won’t even be the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question by March. Obama’s shown a lot of political adroitness and has a lot of plans for this year, obviously he saw some benefit to having Warren speak.. and at what cost? Obama loses the dkos rec list for a few weeks? That the most exciteable of the blogosphere will be REALLY MAD about it before going on and being REALLY MAD about something else? So?
<
p>Under Obama you’ll see a top-down better attitude towards all kinds of issues relevant towards GLBT issues at all levels of the federal gov’t. You’ll see a renewed democratic party full of allies at each and every state level.
<
p>In the meantime, you guys lost California. Obama’s the bad guy? Warren? They were irrelevant to California, a speech or two at best.
<
p>Don’t get so worked up about the symbolism — that’s for the backwards types who directly oppose you. Pursue results.
<
p>Lastly, regarding ‘killer instinct’, I think you’re confusing MLK with Malcolm X. They both had their roles, of course, MLK was more effective by virtue of having Malcolm X out there and hence being the more reasonable one. But MLK has a day named after him while Malcolm X is still regarded as a scary black dude.
<
p>Likewise on your other comparisons, confusing Gandhi for an armed Indian separatist, and Jesus for an armed Jewish nationalist. Those people are universally revered because they weren’t perceived as being warriors but peacemakers.
but hey, i’m just one of the people actually DIRECTLY affected by all the november 4th failures (there were 4, not 1), so don’t listen to me. you’ve got more important things than actual full citizenship for all americans to consider. cuz how could that be of any fundamental importance at all?
and it’s people’s lives and livelihoods, too. What’s Obama supposed to do, wave a magic wand?
<
p>Like I said before, Warren is just chaff – with any luck it will give Obama more leverage when publically backing socially liberal positions in the future. In the meantime, he, we and you lose nothing – the inauguration isn’t about gay rights.
<
p>I mean, I’m not even defending the pick, I’m just saying it’s not a big deal. Losing the ballot measures is a big deal, this isn’t.
it’s about setting the tone of the administration. the tone so far is one of civil inequality. that’s why it’s a big deal.
Again like I said on another post, unless a political party considers us Equal and will ensure our Equality as a priority, it does not want us. So why do we identify ourselves as Democrats?
<
p>Become un-enrolled…
for some of us, it is highly advantageous to be enrolled so as to further lgbt rights at the local level. unfortunately, of course, that makes us look like we’re in agreement with the national dems. but for those with nothing to gain or lose locally, it’s a suggestion worth considering imo.
This discussion feels as if it is being carried out in an overheated room. It has become very black and white. Thoughtfulness has given way to moral outrage and defensiveness.
<
p>My initial reaction on hearing about Warren’s speaking was disappiontment with Obama.
<
p>However, on one level, I just don’t understand Obama’s (or Deval Patrick’s) election victories. Generally, I expect that Kennedyesque invocations of liberal ideals will have sweeping appeal, help voters to see that they are progressive on the issues, and win big majorities and big victories. However, both those guys ran on a kind of sunny pragmatism with calls for unity and for a focus on solving “problems”.
<
p>Given that, I don’t understand how Obama’s politics work. I don’t understand the effects or import of Warren’s invocation. Maybe others understand this much better than I do, but it just seems to me that there is a lot more to understand here. There might even be some surprises we don’t know about yet.
<
p>I’ve read a number of comparisons with David Duke. We’d all be horrified by David Duke speaking at a Reagan, Bush, or Bush inaugural. To be fair, though, there are some significant differences between Warren and Duke:
And yes, some of the stuff he advocates is moronic and harmful. I wish he were marginal, but he isn’t.