Obama: Fierce Advocate for Gay and Lesbian Americans
There are more then a half dozen articles here on TPM about the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. There is also a video of the President-elect responding to the criticism of this decision to honor an evangelical minister at the inauguration. Opponents state that the pastor is anti-gay because he opposes gay marriage. People are upset and feel abandoned by Obama because of this decision. How ironic that we progressives are already breaking apart due to a classic wedge issue without any help from the Christian Reich or Republicans in general.
There was a tremendous milestone made by Barack Obama from the podium to the press. The President-elect declared that he was "a fierce advoicate for equality of gay and lesbian Americans". To my mind, this was a brave and bold statement of intent. Obama is not threatened by Pastor Warren, or any other evangelicals. It seems the selection is allowing Obama to express his views on the issue of gay rights. He is bringing the issue into the public square. Warren is merely the vehicle for the message that gay rights will be advanced during his term.
We can argue how far Obama is willing to go, but we can all agree, I hope, that right now, today, the GLBT community are already much better represented then they have ever been in Washington. We can all believe also that the GLBT community will be in much better standing at the end of his term(s).
We should all take note how Obama operates. He does not encumber himself with posturing. He is determined to hear all sides of an argument and to retain a respectful discussion of any subject. It does not seem there is anything he is not willing to address.
If we were expecting him to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine, we will be disappointed. If we were looking forward to Obama bringing us all together, bringing us where we can recognize that regardless of what other verbiage we might use to identify ourselves or others, we are all Americans, then we have been encouraged. That's the change I believe in. Attacking Obama for merely giving the guy a podium for a few minutes, is more of the same.
Dare I say, "Amen."
December 19, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that many have over-faulted Obama on symbolic gay concerns, like the overweaning harping on Donnie McClurkin that went on for months at Democratic Underground.
I also noted recently that polls at the times of the 04 and 08 elections showed that, while both Kerry and Obama got over 70% of the "gay vote", Obama got a slightly smaller (by about 2%) proportion than Kerry, while Obama, running ahead by 5% and more among a wide range of groups or categories, and against a less than particularly attractive candidate on such issues, declined among gays as among very few groups.
Clearly there is a practical political issue here, merits aside
December 19, 2008 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
but, but I thought gays voted him into office? at least that's what I've been hearing since the Warren news broke. I was in shock when I heard some people say this - I was like, "really?"
December 19, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad our guys are every bit as committed as the Republicans to setting the important issues aside to focus on tripe like gay marriage and abortion.
Rick Warren is a lot more mainstream than most progressives think, and until they accept him and his followers as decent human beings (and I am not one of them... but they are decent human beings), the progressives will be the intolerant ones around here.
After all, Rick Warren is willing to give an invocation for a "fierce advocate" of sin. That's ecumenism for you.
December 19, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor; you hit the nail on the head in your statement about expecting Obama to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. I have come to believe that many of Obama's "base?" want him to spend the next 4-8 years giving everyone on their shit list the finger. He doesn't work that way and I'm glad. They also don't seem to get how Obama's mind works - you do. He wouldn't do something like this without a plan for something bigger. He knew this backlash would come - he's not stupid. I made a comment on someone else's post that after Obama speaks at his inauguration, a lot of people are going to feel pretty small.
December 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vastg majority of folks here in the TPM pages are fully behind the idea of inclusiveness, reaching across the aisle, bringing in and seeking help from former opponents. The vast majority of Democratic voters are fully behind Obama's recent appointments.
But some of us--many of us--recognize that it can be done poorly. Mistakes can be made. This we feel is one of those. A mistake. A big mistake. Even an insult. It doesn't mean we disagree with the overall idea, though.
Don't fight against straw men.
December 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't have it both ways. You can't say "I'm all for inclusion," and then turn around and say," "But I didn't mean include THOSE people," and refer to a large portion of our citizenry. Reaching out to all Americans is, sooner or later, going to mean reaching out to (millions of) Americans whose views and values are different, backwards, and plainly discriminatory. Either we stand for inclusiveness, and accept that there's going to be conversations with people who don't share our values (or even acknowledge our humanity), OR we're full of crap and we don't at all stand for inclusiveness and dialogue. We can't have it both ways. People can denounce Rick Warren (wrongly) as a David Duke, Hezbollah, and the KKK if it makes them feel better. But the millions of Americans who think like Warren SHOULD be in a respectful conversation with a progressive like Obama, as should Warren himself.
December 19, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of like David Goldberger. Now that is having the courage of your convictions. First we must understand and then perhaps we can make ourselves understood. Not a new idea, but one that makes more sense to me these days.
December 19, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberger is a great example of someone standing up for a principle, (free speech), even when such speech is a contradiction of one's own morality. Walking the walk. Easier said than done.
December 20, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't have it both ways. You can't say "I'm all for inclusion," and then turn around and say," "But I didn't mean include THOSE people," and refer to a large portion of our citizenry. Reaching out to all Americans is, sooner or later, going to mean reaching out to (millions of) Americans whose views and values are different, backwards, and plainly discriminatory."
Why does not wanting Rick Warren to have a prominent role in the inauguration amount to exclusion?
Obama can talk to Warren anytime he wants, in any venue he wants. Nobody is objecting to a dialogue with the man.
However, making Warren part of Obama's inauguration sends a signal (at least symbolically) that Warren's views are fine with Obama. That disparaging and demonizing gay people is fine, as long as there are other areas of agreement.
It also rightfully makes gay rights supporters nervous. Will Obama actually take the concerns of gay citizens seriously? We have little record to go on with Obama, so symbolism matters much more.
I wouldn't care at all if Obama had a "poverty summit" with Warren and other religious leaders. Indeed, I'd applaud the idea.
December 19, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't SEND that signal, any more than Obama's membership in Jeremiah Wright's church sends a signal that Obama hates America. You are choosing to receive that signal.
Just as Christian's are in all likelihood misinterpreting the references to homosexuals in the Bible, you may be misinterpreting what Obama's choice of Warren "means."
December 20, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how African American and Jewish Americans would feel if David Duke had been invited to participate in the inauguration? It seems to me that anyone who publicly and repeatedly promotes discrimination against another group of American citizens should not be part of the Inauguration Ceremony period. There is no longer room in the United States for discrimination against any group of citizens. I thought this was one thing that Obama stood for. Evidently I was mistaken.
December 19, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a quote from David Duke:
Do you have a similar quote from Rick Warren?
December 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an idea!
Let's offer a public forum to the KKK, the Aryan Nations, Hezbollah, the American Nazi Party, AND the Westboro Baptist Church!!!!!
And let's hear from those groups that consider Jews as animals - blacks as apes - and Hispanics as wetbacks.
AND let's give them an open microphone and an audience of 40 million!!!!!!
You know, sometimes I am truly embarassed by 'Progressives' who seem unable to tell the difference between private attempts to dissuade and the HANDING OUT OF PUBLIC APPROVAL AND VALIDATION FOR REPUGNANT IDEAS.
But them, of course, none of those 'inclusion' morons are targets of the bigotry and hatred of those whose 'inclusion' they trumpet - often with psychobabble.
December 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd be a lot more credible if you wouldn't shout all the time.
December 19, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. Hyperbole is hyperbole, whether shouted or whispered.
December 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
To many of us it doesn't seem like hyperbole at all. After all Pastor Rick has a problem with Jews, women, homosexuals, and a lot of other folks who don't look or act like he things they should. I don't care to include Mr. Dobson either. All inclusion is not equal.
December 20, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
things=thinks
December 20, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love your shell!
December 20, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
To my mind, this was a brave and bold statement of intent.
I think everyone realizes that. The question is whether or not people trust statements of intent.
And you do have to realize that there are people who view the inclusion of Rick Warren in the inauguration as, itself, a bold statement of intent- the intent to pander to people like Rick Warren. I personally do not think this is a reasonable conclusion (I do not think it follows that just because Obama wants to work with Rick Warren on some issues, then one of those issues is going to be gay rights) but you have to realize that if both Obama's press conference statement yesterday, and the Warren inaugural thing, are statements of intent, then the Warren inclusion is a much louder and more concrete one.
December 19, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me delusional, an Obamacan, whatever, but I'm really not all in for Obama. I'm going Missouri on Obama and waiting for him to show me. I will even admit I may be giving Obama too much credit here, but since Warren decided to take the national stage with his interview of Obama and McCain during the campaign, Obama has put him on stage. Now the blogosphere is making a fool out of Warren and will for weeks. Will this lead to Warren's conversion? We shall see. Will it lead to the conversion of many fence sitters and silent observers? We shall see that too. We've opened a serious wound here discussing the pride of America, our freedom, and it's remaining hypocrisy, the rights of those in the GLBT community. It may be that now that the wound is open it will heal better and we might have a more perfect union. Audacity brought to you by the Next One. Don't know if Obama will be The One, but he is the next one.
December 20, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Christian jihadists invigorate their legions with a vital lie of oppression by the rest of this society. Again, Obama places them in check by effectively 'giving them a place at the table' ... a place, not a mike; and a rather humble place at that, at the far end of the table. But they are INCLUDED. Looks like gently putting them in their place to me, while denying them the victim-status they use for fuel.
America's Xtian radicals, Capitolist mobs and kingpins and many others got us in our current septic tank at home and abroad FOR LACK OF CONSISTENT ADULT SUPERVISION. That is what is now needed, in massive quantities. Not Liberal Orthodoxy, not a new, mirror-image PC enforced by Democrat oligarchs, not more institutionalized graft and privilege and hauteur spawned by Progressive mullahs.
The country needs a evenhanded GROWNUP. Obama looks a lot like one to me.
December 19, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree!
December 19, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended for sure. You hit the nail on the head with regards to the ultimate strategy behind this rather subtle tactic.
I totally understand how many liberals wouldn't understand this move and would find Warren offensive, but that is a checkers mentality to me.
Obama has always played chess.
December 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Warren is sending the message that gay rights will be advanced? Really?
Rachel Maddow today showed a page from the Saddleback church's website explicitly stating that unrepentant gays are not welcome in Saddleback church. Hardly a message of unity and inclusion.
Really?
December 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not too long ago, Mormons did not allow blacks to hold the Priesthood. They do now. Things change. This will, too.
December 20, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Obama is riding him to the party where Obama will step out from behnd the driver's side and be President. Really. I believe that.
December 20, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton was also an advocate for gay rights. That got us "don't ask don't tell," which isn't great but it's an improvement over what was there before.
So far, Obama has given lip service to gay rights but actions speak louder than words. And I don't believe for one minute that someone who has stated he is opposed to gay marriage is "a fierce advocate of gay rights." Bullshit.
If all Warren ever did was oppose gay marriage, I wouldn't be up in arms over the pick. He's done far worse than that. He says that homosexuality is a sin, gays must "repent" their homosexuality to be a member of his church, they run a "therapy" program to "cure" gays, and he says being gay is no different than being a pedophile or polygamist.
>>>If we were looking forward to Obama bringing us all together, bringing us where we can recognize that regardless of what other verbiage we might use to identify ourselves or others, we are all Americans, then we have been encouraged.
How does choosing someone as divisive as Rick Warren translate into bringing us all together? There are hundreds of Christian ministers out there who know how to bring people together. Why isn't one of them giving the invocation?
December 19, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is not there to bring you to the table, but to bring his people. After the party, there may be fewer going back home with Warren.
December 20, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello,
I am new to this website and have a honest question; Once same sex marriage is ratified what will be the next front? Let me clarify, What rights will need to be awarded next? I believe in equality, and I believe in Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am honestly concerned about where is the marriage front going to venture to next. Will same sex marriage be the final marriage front? Or whats the next "revolution"? I ask these questions honestly. I am not radical left or right. I would like some honest feedback.
thanx
swish
December 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink