I think Obama could have found a clergyperson closer to his values to deliver the invocation. But I understand the decision. All right? Fire away. I don't like it — I'm not supposed to like it — but yes, I understand it.
Obama continues to work in a community-organizer mode. Community organizers try to get people who can't stand each other to sit in a room and work out solutions. The strategy is not to exclude or try to marginalize someone based on their beliefs or positions — even repugnant ones, even “non-negotiables”. In fact, it means just the opposite: By elevating their status, you give them some stake in the success of the broader mission — in this case, the Obama presidency.
So yes, part of this is working in the Venn-diagram-overlap between “progressive” Obama and “conservative” Warren: global warming, global AIDS/HIV, and so forth. (These are not somehow minor issues, are they? “Violins,” David?) And part of it is to say to evangelicals, “I see you.” Whether we like it or not, they are not politically marginal. They're not going away. As far as elevating Warren's status — the guy's already sold a bazillion books. He's already got status. Of course Obama's trying to co-opt that — and vice-versa. In so doing, Obama may be able to blunt the effect of the inevitable evangelical opposition on other issues — courts, abortion … even gay/lesbian issues, should he ever pursue them. (See below.)
Furthermore, I can also see John Cole's argument:
… I would prefer someone else.
But I also understand that I would much rather have Warren given a few minutes to speak about religion at a time and manner appropriate for religious discussion than I would having Obama give a nod to the religious right by appointing the God squad to Justice, to the FDA, to NASA, and so on. When Rick Warren and folks like him are driving policy in an Obama administration, I will then muster the necessary outrage.
It must be stated, strongly, that Obama has not been courageous on LGBT issues. He didn't come out strongly enough on Prop 8. He doesn't support same-sex marriage. So the danger of this choice is that, well, it pisses us off. Andrew Sullivan suggests that he can also say I see you to the LGBT coalition, by pushing a federal civil unions bill and the abolition of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. Those would be good.
Again, I'm not asking anyone to pretend to be happy about this. But to me, it seems completely consistent with Obama's mode of operation, one that he likely picked up a long time ago, working in Chicago's poor neighborhoods, and which he continued in the early 1990s on the Harvard Law Review. This is who we elected — for better or worse.
It’s fascinating to me that, right or wrong on the merits, someone can be deemed beyond the pale, so to speak, on gay marriage–either as a moral issue, an issue of what “equal protection of the laws” means, or whatever–in 2008 when not more than a decade ago gay marriage was a pipe dream. Many years from now, if in fact the American people come to a consensus that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, people who are outspoken opponents of the Rick Warren invitation will seem to be the Garrisons of our day, thundering away prophetically (or profanely in some cases!) at what they see as an injustice, and most people, I predict, will say that it is unfair to judge Obama and others who supported the invitation to Warren in an ahistorical way.
<
p>TedF
But my point is we don’t say that Lincoln, for example, was “beyond the pale” for his racist views (see the speech excerpt below).
<
p>TedF
…but he was still a racist and White Supremacist.
Lincoln started off his presidency infuriating abolitionists. He was only opposed to the expansion of slavery into northern territories. He supported the idea of shipping freed slaves back to Africa. Later on, he moved off this position, but remember the emancipation proclamation, in addition to being offered later than many abolitionist would have hoped freed slaves in the breakaway states, not those in the Union. As he came to better understand the truth (in large part thanks to Frederick Douglas who spent time campaigning against Lincoln early on) he moved to the correct position (in my opinion of truth and correct).
<
p>It was a whole bunch of abolitionist saying F you to him for many years that helped move him. The guy on the penny may have been a saint who always stood for good, the guy in the white house was a centrist on slavery.
<
p>On election day homosexuals lost. On the day we celebrate Obama’s victory (for which there is much to celebrate) having Rick Warren in a prominent place helps cement that loss.
<
p>This isn’t a historical argument and it doesn’t matter if the majority of Americans ever agree that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. It is a civil rights issue. I’m Obama’s contemporary, I’m saying that his position, given the evidence that he has is indefensible.
In any event, Lincoln needed Garrison and others like him; as dhammer argues above, he wouldn’t have succeeded otherwise. Similarly, Obama needs to hear howls from his left on this issue. He is wrong, and he needs to understand that people who worked hard to get him elected are angry about it.
… a check to his campaign. It’d be voided and under the memo it’ll say ‘LGBT rights’.
The timing is just so special.
<
p>A lot of people think the work of a campaign ends when the election is over…
<
p>It’s crucial that our presidential transition reflects the same values as the campaign…
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>JoeYeah, values. The value of giving a megaphone to a hater. I can get behind that. Sign me up.
<
p>This is carved on the Garrison statue on Commonwealth Ave.
Just to give an example, here is Lincoln in one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858:
<
p>
<
p>TedF
<
p>I’ve thought of this angle, but I still see it as a gamble. More important to Warren than Obama is his flock, the people who buy his book, and the people who pay their tithes to Warren. It is they who will ultimately decide the fate of this experiment.
<
p>I want it to be true that Obama’s reaching out to Warren will pay productive dividends to our collective future progress, but I could just as easily see Warren and crew not budging one single inch or even being combative to the Democratic government, even on issue where they should be in agreement.
<
p>What I’m saying is that I don’t have a high opinion of Warren’s integrity and sincerity.
You have to engage with those you disagree with, especially when you do share common ground on other issues. Do I personally detest Rick Warren? Yeah, just like I do every other anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-intellectual homophobic preacher.
<
p>But nobody ever got anywhere by ignoring their enemies and wishing them away (see: Castro, Fidel). It is smart politics to throw Rick Warren and his followers a bone and give him a role at the inauguration.
<
p>I’m all for bringing them into the fold, hearing what they have to say, and let’s see if they’re willing and able to hear what we have to say. Maybe even this new generation of somewhat more progressive evangelicals will be too fundamentalist and unwilling to compromise… But they have to prove that negative, we can’t assume it.
<
p>The problems we face as a nation (and a world!) are so big in scope that they require all hands on deck. In order to successfully do this, the Democratic party have to be the new ‘Big Tent’ party, especially since the Republicans have abrogated all responsibility for good governance. This coalition needs to be not only of politicians, but of normal folks– the ones who’re going to have to work shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors rebuilding our economy and infrastructure and greening ourselves out of this impending depression and ecological collapse.
<
p>I’m looking at this kind of like the sociology of the military… real racial integration began once soldiers served together. Maybe if we all come together and work together on our big common problems, we’ll learn the smaller differences like religion and sexual orientation don’t matter much after all…
<
p>…or maybe I’m just being a pie-eyed utopian idealist. I dunno. đŸ˜‰
I dislike the man on a visceral level… he strikes me as a smarmy used-car salesman (just like most televangelists do).
<
p>And while on an intellectual level I can appreciate our common ground on climate change and whatnot, it doesn’t give him a pass with me for what I feel are his other execrable beliefs.
Make no mistake Warren’s status will be elevated, I don’t see how you could argue against that no matter how many books he has already sold.
<
p>The impact will be profound, by this decision he is putting out there a sense that Warren’s point of view and alike is mainstream.
<
p>Colossal mistake. I don’t understand the choice and I’m not going to be a contortionist and twist things to say that he did this because of his background as a community organizer. It is what it is.
At Clintons?
<
p>I don’t, off the top of my head… I’m sure I could got to ‘the google’ to find out, but I don’t recall any excess ‘status elevation’ deriving from previous invocations.
Could it be that their choice was not one of epic stupidity?
actively campaigning to take away people’s rights at the time of the invocation. Help me out here.
<
p>Warren doesn’t benefit and his status elevated by doing the invocation? Please.
And yes, I had to look it up, but the idea that their ministries or Samaritan’s Purse, the relief organization Franklin Grahm runs wasn’t helped by their relationship with the President seems silly.
<
p>It doesn’t matter if you remember, it matters if being there helped their mission.
Warren stands to lose if his congregation abhors his seeming acceptance and approval of a politician who supports the brutal murder of the innocent unborn, etc.
<
p>So, if his presence “mainstreams” opposition to SSM, then does it also mean that evangelicals are dropping their opposition to legal abortion?
<
p>Also, if Warren somehow legitimizes or popularizes opposition to SSM, how does the inclusion of Lowery not legitimize and popularize the opposite?
And he is quite elderly. Unless Warren strokes out (possible – he needs to review the gluttony passages of the bible), it is Warren who seeks the limelight and does the talk show rounds. Lowery is too reserved and retired in regualr life to overshadow Warren for long. Sadly.
Nobody in my house heard of this Warren guy until yesterday.
during the campaign?
<
p>He hosted the religous forum carried on CNN with Obama and McCain. It was their first appearance at the same event.
Not sure that either the name of the guy or the name of the church had much sticking power. I don’t remember who hosted the other debates, either, or what channel they were from.
<
p>I haven’t read his books, and have no interest in reading his books, and probably would never be in the section of a bookstore where his books are displayed.
<
p>Anyway, I gather from all of this that he aspires to be the next Billy Graham.
or Al from Home Improvement.
<
p>I don’t follow this much either but the Saddleback Church and the faith discussion, which was televised with Obama and McCain was fairly significant during the campaign. I was making the point that it was televised.
<
p>This guy is bad news, he shouldn’t have been picked.
not only did he host the
accountingdebate johnk already mentioned, he was in the news frequently as the candidates sought to kiss his ring. before the elections, he was quite well known for his books. but then i’m tuned into these religious politicos because of their activism against my very person. others who don’t “benefit” from their godly love so directly might be able to tune them out as just another crass political striver.Via CNN
<
p>This has in no way been billed as you describe, just the opposite. Good point, but that isn’t the case.
He could have hosted one of the Inaugural Galas for “People of Diverse Opinions About Negroes…”
“When Rick Warren and folks like him are driving policy in an Obama administration, I will then muster the necessary outrage.”
<
p>When Rick Warren and folks like him are driving policy in an Obama administration, it will be TOO LATE!
<
p>Unless the strategy is, I will dupe the American Bigotted Community into thinking I actually like Warren’s views and then I will pull the rug out from under them and make sure LGBT people are actually treated as Equal American Citizens… but I don’t think so at all that this is the strategy.
<
p>What LGBT and Equality Supporters so easily forget is that WE ARE on the right side of the issue here. There is no grey area, no “opinions,” no discussion, no justification for keeping a group of tax paying law abiding citizens from Equality. “The Conversation” will get us Equality, but at some point we need to wake up and smell the reality and get the balls to say, “we are right and you are wrong!”
I received tickets to the inauguration from my Congressman. I was incredibly excited! After learning that Rick Warren would be delivering the invocation, I felt a lump in my throat. I can’t believe that I will have to stand there and listen to someone who has taken steps to cement my second-class citizenship. Sure, Obama doesn’t “believe” in same-sex marriage, but he has never actively worked to make me unequal, Rick Warren has.
<
p>Perhaps I should give my inauguration tickets to someone who is actually welcome at the event, someone heterosexual. If I do go, I will turn my back when Warren speaks.
<
p>If you think I am blowing this out of proportion, just imagine how an African American would feel if Bill Clinton had invited a pastor who had spoken in favor of segregation to deliver his invocation. Unbelievable.
Can I have your tickets?
You give me the tickets, and I’ll do what I can to call out Warren when he speaks — a sign if it’s allowed, a chant, whatever.
<
p>Deal? I am being completely serious — I couldn’t score tickets but would like to go.
Washington is absolutely crawling with people who are against SSM. And it used to be crawling with people who were for segregation. I don’t know … the more relevant comparison is whether Truman/Ike/Kennedy/Johnson had a segregationist deliver the invocation.
<
p>Anyway, I would go, if I were you. Hold a sign — I wouldn’t turn my back, I wouldn’t try to shout him down. Try to get interviewed. Use the moment. Keep it real, keep it respectful — because in the end, it’s not about tearing down Warren himself, it’s about changing people’s minds.
It is silent, but says it all. And you can;t be arrested for it. But I like your other ideas.
<
p>I am wondering if the LGBT marching band invited to be in the parade will go. I think they should march, but refuse to play.
when Obama repeats the oath bit about upholding the Constitution, be sure to loudly clear your throat in a pointed way.
<
p>I live in a very Obama neighborhood, and can hardly stand to make eye contact with my neighbors since the 4-state disaster of Nov 4th. They are so delighted about Obama and just don’t understand that Nov 4th and now this Warren selection are completely humiliating. I just can’t stand to be around well-meaning and delighted people who should get it but don’t. Maybe you have thicker skin that I do, but realize that if you go to DC, you’ll be in a sea of such people. Unless of course you carefully plan ahead to join a block of LGBT-As.
<
p>I’m still delighted about your Phelps-A-Thon success. Maybe you can run a Purpose-driven Lies-A-Thon in DC đŸ™‚
Here’s my view: I don’t see enough of a positive coming out of this to justify throwing some very ardent Obama supporters under the bus. The election results were bittersweet for LGBT Obama supporters due to the Prop. 8 win, so the timing is really bad given that people are just getting over the initial shock of losing marriage rights in CA.
<
p>I understand that some supporters are going to be disappointed by actions taken by the Obama administration. I suspect that labor support will not be happy with some of the stimulus and/or auto packages, but if it leads to a good solution, it’s just part of what has to happen to get things done. I don’t see that in this case.
<
p>petr asked,
<
p>
<
p>This situation is a lot different. Neither chose someone that caused such a reaction by a block of supporters for either candidate. This will be remembered.
<
p>I’m already thinking ahead to the 2010 gubernatorial campaign and wondering which of the hard-working 2006 Patrick supporters will end up sitting that one out due to Deval’s positions on casinos, Mass Pike tolls, etc. I also fear that this is the first splintering of the massive Obama coalition, a significant number of supporters who will not be there in 2012.
the only way this will be forgiven is if Obama achieves (not just pursues) passage of ALL the LGBT legislation, and does it without delay or reservation. Otherwise, he’s toast in terms of ever getting meaningful LGBT-A support again and he can expect organized and very active opposition from some as well. Will will not abide another Bill Clinton.
Sorry to go off-topic, but what does the “A” stand for? I’ve seen it with or without a “Q” before, but never “A.”
The most important letter in the acronym! đŸ™‚
unless we let ourselves be outraged in the face of injustice. Obama will do what he must do, and we aren’t likely to change this decision; however, the next time he might remember that he won’t get away with it. If, in any way, we show understanding for his actions here, we lose ground. Strong and unrelenting protest is the only strategy that will work in the long run. Otherwise we deserve what we’ll end up getting… absolutely nothing. That’s politics.
I think the responses are, not to put to fine a point on it, on the hysterical side. Not hysterical as in ‘so funny my sides hurt’ but hysterical as in ‘omg, my sides hurt, I must have terminal lymphoma and am likely to die in the next 20 minutes. omg. Why me?’
<
p>I’d rather see the first expression ’cause many, formerly, funny people here have eschewed their humor for a ranting casus belli directed at Obama. Not only is this not fair, it’s distinctly lacking in both perspective and justification.
<
p>I originally did not like Obama because I thought he was a lightweight. I was wrong. He is, if anything, completely his own man. That means he doesn’t need me to justify his choices and he doesn’t need your validation. So, while I don’t like the choice of invocation speaker, I deal. I don’t think there is a danger of rampant evangelicalism breaking out in the White House any time soon. And, while I do think there is some weighty symbolism behind the choice of Rick Warren, I’m not prepared to declare Armageddon is imminent as a result. ( Many of you are merely opposed to him. Me, I’m a Christian who has to deal with people thinking he speaks for me… )
<
p>As for Obama’s choices, whether they be Rick Warren or otherwise, he’s consistently shown me that he’s three, if not four, steps ahead of everybody else. I thought it was an insane fit of pique for him to pick Biden for VP over Clinton. But Biden and Rham Emmanual give him deep ties to both branches of Congress. And Clinton as SecState is a stroke of genius. I cannot believe he stumbled upon this constellation of advisors and policymakers by accident. I know he was thinking of it from the beginning. We might never know what Obamas’ reasoning is behind the Warren choice, but I’m fairly confident that he’s likewise three, maybe four, steps ahead of Warren.
<
p>Given this, and his truly stunning choices for energy and science, there is little cause for hand-wringing and even less for hysterical cries of injustice and betrayal.
<
p>
if you fundamentally trust him on lgbt issues. if you believe his heart is in the right place, you will see this as a master stroke which the rest of us will come to appreciate in due course. but if you see him as someone who at best has spoken out both sides of his mouth, you will see this as a harbinger for more of the backstabbing we lgbt’s have endured from the dems forever.
<
p>he has had few opportunities to send concrete messages to the lgbt’s about where his heart really lies because as a senator he did nothing but criticize lgbt legislation (famously the UAFA). the first were the constitutional amendments. he chose the side if the haters. the second were cabinet appointments. no lgbt’s there, and his rahm emmanuel has treated gays badly in the past. the third was the inauguration. you know how we feel about that. but we do get to provide entertainment by having a marching band in the parade. yippee! we’ve arrived!
<
p>it’s great that he has a large lgbt legislative agenda lined up. but if he doesn’t move on it soon and with conviction like the fierce tiger he tells us he is, well…
<
p>I do not fundamentally trust him on lgbt issues. Either way. I don’t think, however problematic that is for you, that lgbt issues are a priority for him… I don’t think he’s out to support you, or betray you. I think what he says is what he would like to do if he had the luxury of doing them. That you seem to paint that, in itself, as a betrayal is, I think, a problem of perspective.
<
p>I would like the luxury of worrying about who’s marrying whom. My highest priority, right now, is repair and reparation: Stop the torture; Close Gitmo; Bring home the troops. I want to see war crimes charges and tribunals. I want to see Dick Cheney in leg irons in the Hague a great deal more than you want to marry. I doubt I’ll get my wish, but we’re moving towards repair at least. My second priority is to detail, and then denounce, the fiscal, economic and regulatory malfeasance that brought this country to her knees. With a few deft speeches (borrowing heavily on FDR), some legislative elbow-grease and some sane policy, we can put the final stake through the heart of the laissez-faire vampire for good and all. We’re THAT close…
<
p>I have a great deal of empathy for lgbt issues and would love to see full marriage equality and a definitive overturning of DADT. I can’t, in the face of so much more dire circumstances, muster up that much energy on the issue. I’m sorry. I know how you feel. I just can’t get that exercised about it, ’cause I’m so much more exercised about all this other stuff here.
If you did, you would say that LGBT legislation would be pursued alongside all those other concerns. It’s not a zero sum game. But no, you’re happy to shove it off to some undisclosed future. Thanks. Thanks for nothing. It doesn’t have to be that way.
<
p>That’s a fair point. I recognize the monstrous unfairness here, and my part in it. I wish I possessed the power to make things different.
<
p>I don’t know from ‘zero sum game’ nor do I know about ‘some undisclosed future’, but I do know that we, Obama included, all have to walk a tightrope here. Our job is harder. The other side just has to throw wrenches into the works. We actually have to grease the machinery and make the gears mesh and make the engine fire and the wheels roll. We’re the ones trying to do something. Obama does have to balance priorities. We have to balance our support and sometimes swallow our anger. I, personally, get very frustrated when people talk of betrayal and withdrawing their support in the cause of a single issue… as though their loyalty runs along the wobble of single idea. In that direction lies madness and worse, as I pointed out earlier, losing ones sense of humor…
<
p>Obama disappointed me with his FISA vote. He disappoints on the choice of Rick Warren. He is inclusive, perhaps, to a fault. He is also forward thinking and progressive in ideology. He is, however (and much like every Dem president we’ve had since FDR, save LBJ) conservative and very very deliberate in action, preferring, I think, to move on consensus amongst the power brokers and to arduosly placate the kicking-n-screaming reactionaries rather than run boldly ahead of the pack. There’s an inherent tension in his ideas and his actions thats, frankly, unnerving. There’s a lot to like there. There’s a lot to hate there. BMG spent a lot of time and energy in the primaries worrying about loving him too much and without cause, and now we get to have the discussion about hating him to much and for little reason…
<
p>… Never a dull moment!
by not apologizing for politicians who think it’s ok to never get around to allowing 5-10% of the American people realize their Constitutional rights. It’s pure BS that the government doesn’t have time to work on the legislation. I’m 45. When do I get the same rights that you enjoy, huh? When? You should be APPALLED that I don’t have them THE DAY I WAS BORN. You should not be able to sleep nights. In January we will inaugurate another president who winks at the Constitution and tells me that I am exempted from its provisions that offend his religion. You should be APPALLED, not making excuses.
MassEquality (in the person of Marc Solomon, Executive Director) sent out an email blast the day after election, excerpted thus:
<
p>”I cannot pretend that this loss [Prop. 8] does not sting. It does, terribly. But as dejected as I am today, I am equally sure this is a temporary setback. As Martin Luther King said so eloquently, “The arch of of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Sometimes it just doesn’t happen as quickly as we would like.”
<
p>”And of course, we are so buoyed at the win of Barack Obama, the first presidential candidate MassEquality has endorsed. We will now have a strong pro-equality voice in White House, and long-stifled legislation supporting LGBT equality will finally be signed into law.”
<
p>If MassEquality can be so optimistic, I think others can be as well. One comment I’d like to make about the comparison to racial equality. Remember, that was a long struggle as well. I estimate that the LGBT-equality track is about 40-50 years behind the racial-equality track. In both cases the more enlightened among us would love to just snap our fingers and make it happen, but considering much of this wasn’t even talked about in the 1980s I think we’re making steady progress.
Petr, your argument does has a tough-nosed consistency, but I am sure it is unacceptable to those in the GLBT community who feel that they worked hard for this guy, that they even delivered key support, and he owes them something. That feeling is not unique or strange, but is simply politics 101.
<
p>I think Charlie’s analysis strikes the right tone but I would specifically add that the Warren selection is showing us exactly what Obama meant when he said he would be a Uniter not a Divider. That always sounded good at the time, but there may have been an impression that Obama would achieve that unity in a way that made all sides feel that they were the chosen ones. In reality, he has no magic tricks up his sleeve. If he is to be a Uniter, that means taking some of the spoils of his Administration and spreading them around, even to his enemies, and to groups that are enemies of his allies.
<
p>If he had executed the transition with exclusively appointments exclusively from the left-wing and/or his base, he would have kept his base very happy. But nationally, such an action would be Divisive. It would appear to be a fundamental trade-off.
<
p>When I consider Warren alongside Gates and Clinton, my conclusion is that Obama is specifically trying to govern America in a way that, as far as I know, has never been attempted. Previous Presidents have enjoyed strong communication channels into all elements of their base, and little or no channels into most elements of the opposition’s base.
<
p>As a theoretical example, if Bill Clinton had wanted to, say, labor unions, he could have just invited the union leaders over to the White House for an extended sit-down. He could have started a public discussion and, if he wanted, created a working group or two to plan out some new policy.
<
p>In the contrasting example, if Clinton had wanted to talk to hard-core Republicans, he might have had one or two names in his cell phone of people no one had ever heard of, but who served as his liaisons to Conservative circles. He would go through them, and in a very hush-hush, back room manner, get some proposal to the ears of the Gingrich crowd, the Wall Street cons, or whomever he wanted to speak with. Of course, heaven knows what sort of mischief could happen in the ensuing game of “psst-pass it on”; but these sort of back-channel communications are normal in US and world politics.
<
p>My take is Obama doesn’t want to do that. He wants to have broad, open communication channels into as many demographics of American politics as possible. He has done this, so far, by bringing people into his Administration who ordinarily would have no place. The common denominator of Clinton, Gates, and Warren is that each provides strong and open access into a vast swathe of the American body politic that otherwise would have been only accessible to him by back-channels.
<
p>Again, this approach is not without its trade-offs, and the GLBT community is feeling that now, as the anti-war crowd did with Gates. When you vote for “Uniter not Divider,” perhaps this is the consequence. If you don’t like it, next time you can go back and vote for your preferred Divider. And that may prove to be the smart vote; time will tell.