This is really bad:
Barack Obama’s choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November, but it is drawing fierce challenges from a gay rights movement that — in the wake of a gay marriage ban in California — is looking for a fight.
Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California, opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals’ staunch support for economic conservatism. But it’s his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday.
After the debacle of Prop 8 — which Obama never mentioned on a public platform during the campaign and has not addressed since Election Day — this is a kick in the gut to every gay American. Here’s a quick look at Warren’s positions from Right Wing Watch:
[In] 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were “non-negotiable” issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama’s answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice. He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying “there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” He’s declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.
So why has this man been tapped to deliver the invocation at Obama’s inauguration?
This selection is clearly not about “change” — it’s about making a high profile decision to give the stage over to a known homophobe; choosing Rick Warren is tantamount to asking any of the professional “Christian” set to stand up there. There is no excuse for this, given there are so many leaders of the faith community out there that are in alignment with equality for all.
Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.
The response from the Obama transition team just adds insult to injury:
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”
“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] issues. But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”
Right. So at which point in the ceremonies will we hear from a white supremacist?
In October 2007, Obama made a negative first impression on millions of gay people when he invited “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to join him on a statewide tour of South Carolina, despite the fact that the “ex-gay” movement has been discredited by every legitimate psychological authority, and, in fact, it does more harm thang good. Obama’s decision to include McClurkin was viewed as an attempt to pander to African-American evangelicals.
According to the Advocate, not long after the McClurkin debacle, “the press latched on to Obama’s friendship with antigay minister James Meeks, from whom Obama had long claimed to seek regular ’spiritual counsel.’ This association led a number of on-the-fence LGBT voters to rally behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.”
What this shows is that Obama is either tone deaf on gay issues, which is not unusual among leaders of the Democratic Party — Bill Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act while he was having an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky — or he really is fundamentally homophobic, and the truth is just now coming out.
We’ll know which is which on Inauguration Day.
- Topic: News & Comment
- Topics: Congress
Politics is a dirty, twisted game, and for that reason Obama’s camp is playing it safe in choosing Warren.
If some dirt turns up on Warren, hey, he’s the love-child of the far right, don’t look at us liberals! We TRUSTED Warren and he let us down! (Thus no dirt will turn up unless the gay community finds something on him).
Warren seems like a weird, innapropriate choice, but when you look at it politically it makes sense, and that’s what has gotten Obama where he is, political good sense.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed that this doesn’t backfire, which is always a possiblity in playing politics.
P.S. Warren states that, “Only 2% of the population is homosexual”.
Actually it’s 10-15%. The 2% Warren refers to are gays who are openly gay, the rest are still in the closet.
I am stunned. I knew he would select a mixed bag of dignataries, but a Evangical minister? I have lost a little faith in Obama. This was a bad decision. Now they have the national stage the time of a new beginning. Worries me. After all our work, how did that happen?
It’s time to throw our shoes at Obama.
“We’ll know which is which on Inauguration Day”
Unfortunately it will probably be way after Inauguration Day before we’ll know what’s up with Obama. As someone who voted for him I have to admit I am very dissappointed.
Perhaps the choice of Warren by Obama is politically expedient…or not. Personally, as a Progressive, I have been of the opinion almost from the beginning that Obama is NOT a progressive or a liberal at all. Given the choices we had, I did vote for him. But I am very leery about what will happen after the inauguration (IF an inauguration will be allowed to occur at all).
I don’t care whether he’s a progressive or not. He’s a Democrat, and should know better. Bill Clinton would have never done anything this stupid, and he’s no progressive.
I gonna keep my shirt on for now (easy for me to say) but I’m expectin Mr. O. to support and increase the rights of LGBT folks !
I never expected that, BJM, but I did expect him to do no harm. Homophobic statements like Warren’s contribute to the culture of violence against gays. Putting Warren in a featured role at the inauguration is a tacit endorsement of his views.
Warren should be eliminated at the inauguration ceremony! All of the attention to religion is destroying the world peace and will harm Obama’s presidency. We voted for change. CHANGE THE PREACHER!!!
A degree in progression of the same virus?
Obama blew it.
I wasn’t even going to bother to vote until a gay friend of mine talked me into it.
That wont happen again.
I think gays & liberals are looking at this all wrong. As a pragmatic Democratic with liberal leanings, I see this as an ironic situation whereby Obama, by choosing a voice of the bigoted Christian right to help install his presidency, is actually signaling quite clearly the HUGE MAGNITUDE OF THE CHANGE that he’s brought to America…i.e. the very people who’ve denigrated, denounced and tried to ‘deny’ him are now BEING MADE to the be ones to actually INSTALL him into office!
What better and more delicious irony!!! So to my gay and liberal friends…don’t be angry with Obama about this…instead rejoice in the irony and symbolism of the fanatic right acquiescing to Obama and participating in the most historic installation of a new U.S. president ever!!
I take your point, George. But why does the speaker have to be a gay-hater? Why can’t he be a racist or anti-semite or someone who hates white people? If it’s about forcing his tormentors to anoint him, why not ask Sean Hannity to open the ceremonies with a prayer?
We had our asses kicked last month by Warren and his ilk. Inviting Warren is cold on Obama’s part, and it reminds us that Obama said nothing about Prop 8 before the election, and has said nothing since. And it didn’t help when he defended the invitation by describing himself as a “fierce” advocate of gay rights, which is a gross overstatement.
Prop 8 was a real buzzkill for us on Election Day. By inviting a bigot to give the invocation, Obama has nullified the significance of this historic inauguration, as far as gay people are concerned.
Jon…totally agree that Prop 8 was a buzzkill…and I totally support gay marriage and Prop 8, but I know you realize that the reality is that there was a great risk that Obama could ruin chances of getting elected by supporting it before the election…and I accept that because I’d rather see HIM get elected than McCain/Palin. So while I dearly would have loved to see him support it during his campaign, I do understand why he didn’t. And I’m sure you recognize this, as well, as the ‘lesser of two evils’.
I also totally understand the frustration of gay people at seeing Warren get invited to give invocation at inaugural. I, too, was surprised and disappointed by it at first blush. But I’ve come to thinking it’s a bigger picture here that we’re dealing with than just Prop 8.
I see it now as more of a humiliation rather than a reward for Warren and his supporters to be ‘forced’ to accept Obama’s invitation to participate. They HAVE to if they want to maintain any relevance at all and Obama gets points with Congress for ‘reaching across the aisle’ and offering the ‘olive branch’. If Warren & followers don’t ‘take the high road’ here, they will further evidence their ’small-mindedness’ and self-destruct even more.
In this case, and considering the reality of the fact that more Californians actually voted for Prop 8 than against it (regardless of why or Mormon money and influence), I think gays AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY will see more benefit from this ‘you catch more flies with honey…’ approach by Obama. Granted, it’s more long-term in nature, but this way, he isn’t backing them into a corner where their only choice is to dig in and fight. Instead, it’s almost a ‘win them over with love’ approach…which takes a helluva lot more to practice than to preach, I realize.
Might be hard for gays and others to see …and I could be totally and completely wrong on my ‘take’…but I think I’m right about the strategy here…and it works far better and more effectively to gradually assimilate and convert them than it does to antagonize, polarize and fight them, at least for right now in America when they’re still in a position to offer potentially strong opposition.
It’s basically the same strategy many of us advocate for dealing more effectively with Cuba…welcome and assimilate. Polarizing and fighting has kept things in limbo with no benefits for either for far too long now.
As much as I’d like to stomp on and totally get rid of these types of bigots, they ARE here to stay and I think the best we can do is to remember, as I’ve seen Chan Lowe (Sun-Sentinel) and others say about this very subject recently: “Getting even isn’t getting ahead.”
They’re right.
Whatever your position on this, I know and appreciate that it’s of the highest mind and purpose for the benefit of everyone…and I applaud you, Trish and Buck for your efforts and accomplishments in all you’ve been doing here. It’s been my pleasure to discover and follow you…and wish you and yours a Merry Christmas (or Merry whatever YOU celebrate) and a Happy, Healthy & Fulfilling New Year in 2009!!
Best! GM
Yes, we’re being “Sister Souljah’ed” by Obama. My point is, we don’t deserve it.
Obama scared us by pandering to homophobes in South Carolina last year. Nobody expected him to stick his neck out on Prop 8, but inviting one of Prop 8’s most visible supporters in California was a low blow.
Granted, it’s possible that the local significance of this story in California is not registering nationwide, but Warren is one of the bad guys in the Prop 8 saga. Elevating him is a tacit endorsement of his views, even though Obama says it is not.
I’m sure they focus-grouped the invitation, and have gotten the reaction they expected — howls of protest from gays and a few of their supporters but a big “so what” from other Dem constituencies. I have had several straight liberal friends figuratively pat me on the head and tell me I’m over-reacting. But it has been reassuring to see Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow take up the cause. Maddow is on mission to get Warren disinvited.
My only concern is that some people seem to think Obama can’t make mistakes. He can, and, in this decision, he did.
The larger issue is whether appeasing the right works. I can’t think of any instances where it has — they see it as a sign of weakness. In fact, to my knowledge, the only way to work with the GOP is when they are thoroughly defeated, as they are in California now.
I hope Obama has a successful first term, and runs unopposed in ‘12, but if not, I’ll be looking for someone who will truly be a “fierce” advocate for gay rights to support next time.
Thanks for the kind words, George Q. I swear I hadn’t read your comment before my recent post on the Warren invitation but I think we’re thinking along similar, though not identical, lines. In any case, we’ll see what fruit Obama’s choice bears. It will be varied, I’m sure.
Very disappointed in Obama’s choice. Already he does something that makes me question if I voted for the right person. He hasn’t even been sworn in and he does something that makes me wonder if he is after all like every single politician. Yes We Can my donkey.