Rick Warren vs. The GLBT Marching Band

[thoreau]

I'm sure the neoconservative blogosphere is full of as many posts about Obama letting a gay marching band in the inaugaral parade as our blogosphere is full of "wtf rick warren" posts. Warren gets his 30 seconds; the LGBT Marching Band parties all way down Pennsylvania Avenue. Lets not be too hasty in cyer-bitchslapping Obama. I'd say his people are playing both sides of the blogosphere for maximum impact.

Comments

[whiskerfish.livejournal.com]

no

[book-of-daniel.livejournal.com]

Funny. I don't want played at all by my President. I want him to do the right thing for the portion of the electorate who supported him. If I wanted played Id have voted Palin.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

So Obama isn't allowed to disagree with the gay community? It's not like it's a policy decision. its a 30-second prayer. He could have chosen James Dobson? I don't see why we're all - Obama is a failure about gay rights over a single invocation. My point is that he's also including the gay and lesbian marching band (a first in inaugural history) - and that we shouldn't be so reactive to things. He didn't name Warren to his cabinet or declare him his spiritual advisor for his presidency.

I get that people are disappointed - but it's not a "failure" when the man hasn't even become President yet.

[jwg.livejournal.com]

And he mentioned gay people in his victory speech. It's really just fine to hear him acknowledge that we exist as people.

It'll be interesting to see how the actions of him and congress play out over the next several years wrt to DOMA, gays in the military, etc. That's what really counts,

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[philbutrin.livejournal.com]

i read that a lot of pro-lifers are angry at warren for agreeing to appear at an obama event.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

yep. I'm sure that many neocons are outraged that Warren would even accept the invitation.

I just wish people would take a deep breath where all this is concerned.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[musicbearmn.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I couldn't agree more. While at first I was taken aback, in looking at who Obama is, he is inclusive and is trying to reach out to all. We have to understand that he is leading by example and including both sides, whether we like it or not. While Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wouldn't listen to anyone, Rick Warren does listen..he's one of the few on the right-wing side that does use his brain.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

we aren't going to go away, and NEITHER ARE THEY. How can we expect change at all if we don't start listening to each other?

[wescobear.livejournal.com]

Yea, but the Right Wingnuts all sound like the adults in Peanuts "Wah wah wa WAH wa whaaa?"

When they live their lives by everything the Bible says, no exceptions, THEN I'll listen to them seriously.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

but see - they are saying the same thing about us. Until gays this - I wont listen. That gets nobody anywhere.

[musicbearmn.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[snousle.livejournal.com]

I quite agree, politics is all about holding your nose and smiling on cue. An unfortunate necessity in a nation ruled by a cannibal death cult. Frankly, I'm more concerned by reactionary blogospheric slactivism than I am by the fact that Obama is - duh - a politician. I'm sure this realization comes as a surprise to many people. Sure, we can try to turf Warren out of the 2008 inauguration, I just hope we enjoy the 2012 Republican inauguration as much as this one!

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Here's what I said to Martin/boztopia in response to his post. It's appropriate here too, I think.

"Martin - as both a progressive and a gay guy, I wasn't happy with Warren's choice ... at all.

My conclusion on Obama's take on things, given his decisions and choices so far: He values pragmatism (as he sees it), and bringing people of wildly different perspectives together in the public sphere and *forcing* them to deal with each other ... rather than talking past each other as has been the case until now.

This will as a matter of course piss off people on the Right and the Left on a regular basis. But if they're smart, they'll get over it and play ball with him."

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

Exactly my point earlier today.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

*scrolling to your entry* :>)

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

Heh...no worries. You said it better than I did, anyway. :)

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Your point is fully illustrated when I tell you I didn't even KNOW an LGBT marching band was part of the inauguration festivities.

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

"we aren't going to go away, and NEITHER ARE THEY. How can we expect change at all if we don't start listening to each other?"

I agree with you 200%, Robert. This is the country that is ours, they are our fellow citizens, and we have to form some kind of civil society out of it.

And as joebehrsandiego said just above me, "He values pragmatism (as he sees it), and bringing people of wildly different perspectives together in the public sphere and *forcing* them to deal with each other ... rather than talking past each other as has been the case until now."

Absolutely. I think Obama is employing the dialectic to help change spin around to a more left dominant ideology in this country. It's time for a more left-oriented change, but in the meantime, the far Right isn't going anywhere. Getting more mannered, civilized members of the Right into the tent for some good talk and exchange of ideas will ultimately help the change that is coming.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Amen.

So many people on both the Left and Right (and - frankly - *way* too many gay men) think if they scream "f**k you", and alternate that with plugging their ears and singing "LaLaLaLaLa", that the Other Side will just go away.

I can't tell you how frustrated that has made me over the years, and how glad I am that we have a President that "gets" that we have to get beyond those mindsets.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Thank you sir!

[abqdan.livejournal.com]

I'd have to disagree. I do see a necessity to engage people as hateful and deceitful as this man and his church in some kind of dialog. Yes, I want Obama and and the gay community working together to enlighten people and to change their views. But the inauguration? There are so many other ministers he could have chosen, far worthier than this man. To the Christians amongst us (thought I'm not one), in the Prop 8 battle this guy ignored the 9th commandment to further his own ends. He cannot be seen as a good minister in any light if he doesn't follow his own teaching.

Had he simply disagreed with Prop 8, I'd say let him speak. But he didn't do that - he managed a campaign of lies, inuendo and misinformation to win his political objective.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[paulintoronto.livejournal.com]

Interesting discussion. One of the problems for me is that the "both sides have to be listened to" position seems to posit a kind of moral equivalence: you hate us, we hate you, we're all kind of wrong.

But, in fact, "they" are wrong and "we" are not. No one would suggest that slaves and slave-owners need to listen to each other, nor that Jews and Nazis each have a legitimate perspective that needs to be heard and respected. There is clearly a right position and a wrong one.

So why do we, as gay people, have to accept the position that Christian homophobes have the same right as gay people to be legitimized by participating in, for example, the inauguration? (I understand why they might have a legal right, or why it might be pragmatic for Obama to try to win support from them, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, agree with it, or consider it anything other than a slap in the face.)

I suspect that one of the reasons people are so sensitive about this is that Obama has a history of welcoming homophobes onto stage with him, he has publicly expressed opposition to marriage equality, and the last democrat to hold this office, the other "first black president" failed to deliver on his promise of allowing openly gay people to serve in the US military and supported DOMA. So if gays seems "over sensitive" to the president-elect's realpolitik or insensitivity to our feelings, we have lots of reasons for concern.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

The country is pretty evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage. So from their point of view - WE are wrong and THEY are right. (rather than just being on the religious right)

As was brought up earlier in the post - I understand why gays are disapointed - but does every single thing have to be a "the sky is falling - Obama has betrayed us" moment?

I struggle with a zero tolerance policy about the religious right - simply declaring them wrong. It's precisely what they do to us - proclaim us wrong carteblanche. Where does that get us?

America is extremely religious despite our relationships with the subject over the years - and to deny that religious leaders should have a role in the inaugural doesn't seem like an "eyes open" response to the situation. Warren was a visible member of the religious right in America during the election; thats why he was chosen. Even if we disagree with his voice - screaming about his involvement in the political process doesn't make his point-of-view go away.

Obama said this morning at a news conference:

"A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

then lets look at the roll of Warren in simply the context of the inaugaration:

• Invocation - Rick Warren


• Music - Aretha Franklin


• Vice President Biden's Swearing In


• Music - Isthak Pearlman, YoYoMa, Gabriela Montero, and Anthony McGil playing an original composition for the inaugural by John Williams


• President Obama's Swearing In


• President Obama's Inaugural Speech


• Poetry - A poetry reading will follow by Elizabeth Alexander, who teaches African-American studies at Yale and is only the fourth poet to read at an inauguration.


• Benediction - Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, co-founder with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference


Lowery is a powerful speaker - and a member of the southern religious "middle." Lowery is best known for having made these remarks at Coretta Scott King's funeral - with President Bush in the audience.



"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!



so I guess in the big scheme of things - he didn't ask Dobson or Rev. Wright to speak, he asked Warren. Balanced in the invocation by someone who shares a great deal more shared values and positions with the President-Elect.

[paulintoronto.livejournal.com]

I appreciate being able to discuss this in a forum like your journal, and I am confident that it will be possible for us to disagree in an agreeable manner.

I do not dispute anything that you say, but I must conclude that what separates us on this issue is not some nuance of unexamined fact, but a more profound ideological difference, perhaps rooted in our different characters, or countries, or experiences.

I even recognize that it might be pleasanter to take the optimisitic and open-minded approach that you are advocating. But I just can't. Like nudewoody, I admit that I have been sceptical of Obama from the start (although if I were an American I would have voted for him), and it is hard for me to accept his remarks in support of gay rights when he also makes remarks -- if I can present the invitation to Rick Warren as a "remark" -- that seem to me to contradict them.

The more I can see the political efficacy in associating with Warren, despite his "differences of opinion", the easier it is to question whether Obama's support for gay rights is also politically efficacious. Why should I accept that his reaching out to the right is strategic but his reaching out to gays and lesbians is sincere?

In my previous comment, I alluded to slaves and to Nazis, and I worried a little that it might seem hyperbolic: certainly, gay people in America today are not facing the kind of oppression that slaves and European Jews experienced. But I remain convinced that my central comparison is apt. I don't agree with you that Obama's response if fair: for me, being diverse, argumentative and opinionated are good things, and there is lots of room for differences of opinion on every subject. But just as I would not consider the KKK simply another facet in the prism of American diversity, I don't accept that Warren's views are as valid as anyone else's.

Ultimately, though, speaking of diversity, I think that our discussion here is a genuine and legitimate example of diversity: you articulate a reasoned and respectful position on this issue, and I assert a contrary one, hopefully with the same degree of reason and respect. Neither of us is attempting to take away the other's rights, or to diminish the other as a person. On the contrary, you are actually facilitating the diversity by allowing me to comment on your own blog. This is a kind of diversity and respect that I fear Warren (and, alas, perhaps Obama) do not understand.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Here the MSNBC video of
Obama's response to questions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28297465#28297465) - and I think it's a fair response....

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

You know, it's NOT just about gay rights. Rick Warren also does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust, and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The fact that Obama chose him is a slap in the face to progressive ministers. So what, he encourages his congregation to do AIDS relief work in Africa, is that supposed to make US happy. We are still tied to the AIDS is a gay disease by the media, apparently. As far as Obama supporting equal rights, I'm sorry but separate IS NOT equal and I would hope that if anyone understood this it would be Barack Obama.

I didn't vote for Obama, and NO I didn't vote for McCain either. I didn't believe all of the bridgebuilding, new vision stuff from the beginning, and Obama did not disappoint on election eve when he said on MTV that marriage "should be between a man and a woman, however . . ."

What was it that Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.” Isn't it way past due?

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I get why people are disappointed with Warren being asked to give the invocation at the inauguration - but do we really need to proclaim a "the sky is falling we've been betrayed moment" over the invocation - or save that energy for the real law changing policy battles yet to come? In the last 8 years - gays were locked out of every aspect of American governmental policy. Obama has said "I support equality for gay and lesbian americans" repeatedly. Most noteably in his election night speech.

Obama did select a counter to Warren's views in selecting Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery to say the benediction. Lowery is a major supporter of gay rights and a progressive voice. We also are making history by having a GLBT Marching Band invited to be in the inaugural parade. I don't think it's inappropriate to say "lets not crucify the man over this one choice" because I can guarantee you it's hardly our last disagreement with even a moderately liberal presidential administration.

Can I talk to you about this - or would you rather not?

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Civil Unions is not marriage equity, separate but equal is NOT equality (Goddess, I can't believe I am arguing that one!) As a gay man, I am just sick and tired of being tossed under the wheels in the name of political 'progress'.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

I can relate to your position. I think Obama is, as he said, wanting to get people to work together despite differences. Let's give him a chance to try that.
In Canada in the early '70s there was a division of the English vs. the French. Then we had a Prime Minister who was both, Pierre Trudeau. He made things overall much better and one of the reasons that Canada is a nice place to be now. (It's currently threatened of course but that's another story.)
We could have gone down another road back then but the idea of hope and of working together while being different led us down a better one. Not perfect but in the context of what can happen in this world, as good as it could get.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

This is a very good analogy. Thanks for relating it so clearly.

[stivalineri.livejournal.com]

Ironically, black anti gay activists have said that gay people haven't walked the same miles in the same shoes, and our struggle isn't like theirs. This slight by Obama though is reminiscent of a lot of slights done to black people by the Democratic party. Because one of the things black people have had to deal with for basically ever is that the Democrats take them for granted - "Where else are they going to go?"

We helped bring Obama to the dance, and we're going to dance with him, but he's got a long dance card and he's going to make some faux pas with some butt ugly partners besides us.

Remember what happened with Clinton and the gays in the first 100 days. Obama is not going to risk losing a big Democratic majority in Congress by pissing off huge segments of the population. He'll make amends.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

its not like he put Warren in as Health and Social Services Secretary.

He also is poised to nominate the first openly gay man to Secretary of the Navy.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Catching up after being in transit to Scotland yesterday...

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANK ON PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA CHOOSING RICK WARREN TO GIVE INAUGURATION INVOCATION

"I am very disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama's decision to honor Reverend Rick Warren with a prominent role in his inauguration. Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage. But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.

"It is irrelevant that Rev. Warren invited Senator Obama to address his congregation, since he extended an equal invitation to Senator McCain. Furthermore, the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented. The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated."

--I'm afraid I don't see this about being about 'dialog' or 'reaching out'. This is a pretty shallow 'gesture' - look at me, I've got a fundie preacher! Reaching out is a two-way street, and the people who support Warren will not be any more open to changing their minds as a result of this gesture.

Actually, as Frank says, this is more than a gesture; a gesture would be to have him in the audience - fair enough. Instead, he's getting to do the invocation in the inauguration ceremony. That's a real hard gesture to a major part of Obama's constituency - a gesture of the middle-fingered variety. Color me not impressed. I said elsewhere that what I've done is told the Obama folk that, as a contributor to the campaign last year, any future donations from me have been reduced by one-third, since this is the 'first strike' in my book. Positive action on DOMA, DADT, federal partnership recognition, etc will restore that third.

I'm not exactly a platinum level donor, but if tens of thousands of small donors did that, they might pay attention the next time they come up with another 'gesture' along these lines...

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I think it's a poor decision. but is it worth screaming at each other over? meaning - screaming at other gay people that aren't calling for protests and civil disobedience over the decision. For instance - I was called (i love this) a self loathing pitiful fag this morning for suggesting that there are bigger battles to be screaming from the rooftops over and to save our energy for the real policy creating - law making battles that to come? Like DOMA, DADT, etc?

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Jeeze - those SF gheys are rough! That's ridiculous that someone would say that to you. This is hardly an issue for mass protest of the kind you describe - but, they do need be made aware that this was not cool. In my own small way, I've let them know what my response is...

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

...and here's someone else showing his disapproval in an effective way.....

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

wow thats actually pretty damn awesome :)