Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

My letter to Parag Mehta on the Rick Warren choice

By

Mr. Mehta:

President-elect Obama has cited his belief in inclusiveness as the reason for inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Inclusiveness is all well and good, but it should not be extended to Rick Warren, who has done so much to exclude an entire class of people.

You have surely heard by now the question “What if Obama had invited an anti-Semite or racist to give the invocation?” It’s a fair question (and yes, this hypothetical bigot would have a sympathetic résumé on the environment and poverty like Warren). I’d like to think that Obama’s response to it would be more probing than the agree-to-disagree logic with which he has defended the Warren invitation. Actually, I’d like to think that the answer would be a simple: “It would never happen. My vision of inclusiveness ends with those who sow hate for others.”

At best, Obama’s decision here reflects a stubborn insistence on ramming home the theme of inclusiveness. He seems to think, twistedly, that this is best accomplished through provocative moves like inviting a polarizing figure like Rick Warren to christen his administration. At worst, it speaks to a far more deep-seated hostility to the GLBTQ community on Obama’s part than was apparent during the campaign.

Rick Warren has used rhetoric to strike a blow against civility, comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. He has used politics to strike a blow against civil rights, working to help pass Prop 8 in California. This is exactly what the president-elect spent two years declaiming against, and it is exactly why he should not have chosen Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.

Jeremy Thompson

Jamaica Plain MA

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • The man’s probably got a bit on his plate right now. But set aside personal responses. Has he even said anything in his capacity as LGBTQ liaison?

      <

      p>(May I suggest: “Find yourself another liaison, sir.”)

  2. The words – incest, pedophilia, polygamy – you have attributed as a quote to Warren are actually those of the Associated Press. Just to clarify, this is what he actually said –

    <

    p>

    The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that (civil unions) as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

    BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

    Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can’t we do this in a civil way.

    Most people know I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia. I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.

    <

    p>Can you say ‘tantamount to’?  Absolutely.  But it shouldn’t be passed on as a direct quote.

    <

    p>BTW – the 5,000 year thing?  SO wrong.  Marriage was an arrangement for chattel, a treaty device, a land-consolidating measure.  Marriage was far more a civil contract than anything else.  The whole notion of romantic love in marriage is very recent.  To say marriage hasn’t evolved in 5,000 years is nonsense.

  3. Think it’s so important to make sure the incoming administration understands how offensive this choice of preacher was to those who oppose discimination against glbt people.

  4. It asks some pointed questions without throwing a tantrum.  One observation I would make is as I have said elsewhere the LGBT rights movement is about 40-50 years behind the racial equality movement.  It may be anathema to invite a racist preacher to an inauguration now, but would it have been for Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson?  I wouldn’t approve of course, but I’m just offering it up as something to think about for the sake of perspective.

    <

    p>A commenter in another thread wondered if Obama could use this as a teachable moment.  If Warren is delivering the invocation, then it would be before Obama’s inaugural address, the perfect opportunity to make it clear where he stands on the issue.  If Obama wants to be a truly Christian President he can remind everyone that Jesus preached love and inclusion for all people ESPECIALLY those whom society has marginalized.

    • Both DDE and JFK had Marian Anderson — the African-American opera singer who in 1939 was refused permission by the Daughters of the American Revolution to sing at DC’s Constitution Hall, leading to her famous concert at the Lincoln Memorial — sing the National Anthem at their inaugurations.  No racist preachers were invited to participate.

      <

      p>Is any similarly prominent gay American being offered a similar slot at ObamaFest 2009?

      <

      p>There’s some “perspective” for you.

      • Good for them!  I didn’t say such were invited, but wondered how such might have been received.  Yes, I was deliberately being a bit provocative this time.

        • we queers just never get enough of that pointless shit.  

          <

          p>this is not a game, Christopher.  This is people’s lives and citizenship.  Go be needlessly provocative when it’s your rights being used as a political football.

          • No it’s not a game, but I was trying to make a point.  You even give me a 3 rating for this comment where I was trying to be conciliatory?!  The comment above mine from David DID offer perspective and I gave it a 5; I’m sorry you missed the tone.  I recall that elsewhere you used LGBT-A.  Someone asked what th A was for and you said “allies” which you cited as the most important part of the coalition.  Well, you’re not going to have very many if you berate us every time we don’t scream quite as loudly or throw as much of a fit as you do.  People like me won’t change our minds on the merits, but you may find us less enthusiastic about making it a priority and actually doing something about it.  I appreciate your passion, but even on important issues there is a time and place to lighten up just a bit.

            • is not an ally.  go sit in a corner and think about that.

              <

              p>if you’re asking me to “lighten up”, after all the multitude of posts, then you have failed to understand what obama’s warren pick really means to those without civil rights.  i’m too frustrated to continue with you.  i’ll leave it here and maybe we’ll try again another time.

              • it is incredible how much of what she wrote reflects the very troubling conversations i’ve been having with my family & for, well, forever.  it is sad and astonishing how many are willing to downgrade or sever relations than to agree to be humble and learn.

Archives