We need a gay version of Rick Warren.....

[thoreau]

Yep - you heard me right. that is what we need.

The amazing Chris Head capy - pointed me to this video - Rick Warren's weekly video address called "Pastor Rick's News & Views."

I watched it - all 23 or so minutes of it. I encourage each of you to do so as well. Don't just say "i don't want to hear that motherfucker" or "holy fuck why?" - it is because it's important to watch and hear and experience the polished professional voice of the opposition to gay marriage not only in California but the entire country.

There is no wonder Rick Warren is the rock star of the religious right - because he espouses seriously conservative religious views in a very basic no nonsense sort of way. He sounds totally reasonable - until you stop and listen to the basics of his argument. What I found illuminating is that his argument - is almost word for word - the opposite of the gay world view on marriage. It's like he took a paragraph from our of our blogs - reversed the language - and read it aloud. He makes blocking gay marriage in America sound totally reasonable. Is it? of course not. These are obviously not spontaneous speeches - he probably works with a team of people (just like a politician) to carefully write these spots.

After listening to Mr. Warren I grabbed my carebears lunchbox and headed to the public space on Mission street and had my lunch. I could not get the shinyness of his presentation - the sheer production value of his presentation out of my head. Warren is not Pat Robertson or James Dobson or Fred Phelps - who speak out their asses and are easily dismissed as fringe right wing whackos. Nowhere in his speeches or talks does he ever say that Katrina was because god hates fags or show up at a funeral of a dead soldier with God Hates America signs. Warren is something much more dangerous - a highly polished media savvy idealouge with multi-million dollar deep pockets. He is the face of the evolution of the religious right over the last decade. We have much more to fear from people like Warren - than we ever did from people like Pat Robertson or James Dobson. He is the worst kind of religious conservative because he makes his views seem reasonable with a wink and a smile.

So - to my point.

Who is the national leader to match Warren for the progressive GLBT inclusive world view?

HRC President Joe Solemnese? Columnist Andrew Sullivan? MSNBC's Rachel Maddow? San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom? I'm not convinced any of these people - no matter how much they agree with our world view - are the right voice.

The GLBT community and progressive voices across the country - need to develop this kind of face in the media and in lecture circles. Because here is Warren's advantage - he speaks to his congregation in LA and on the web weekly in a slick - easily digestible friendly manner. He speaks manner-of-factly and calmly.

Through election 2008 - think of the power of having used the media in that fashion to speak DIRECTLY to the GLBT community. Instead of us all scratching our heads and wondering where the millions of dollars we threw at California - we could have a voice in the media and to us, the queer community - about how to fight this opposition and what the latest news and unnews is. We need someone that is as polished - communicating to us weekly perhaps. I'm not talking a person that is a paid talking head in Fox news or MSNBC talk show - I'm talking about a person that wants to speak to the progressive movement and discuss it's issues with us the way Rick Warren discusses religious conservatism with his congregation - and lets face it - the rest of the nation. (and possible the world)

The argument has to become less about what a bad person Rick Warren is - and more about how outdated and coercive his argument is. It needs to be said calmly without judgmental tones. Am I saying that Warren isn't judgmental? not at all. but his words are chosen very carefully - and he doesn't 'appear' to be judgmental when he speaks. We need that kind of calm, but purposefully progressive and like-minded voice on our side.

Right now - we 'sound' and 'look' like a bunch of whiny tantrum throwing people who couldn't even organize well enough to win a gay marriage ballot measure in a state as liberal minded as California. The right - under the leadership of Warren and his allies - out organized and out media-savvied the very gays that claim to be the backbone of all things creative from Hollywood actors, to writers to filmmakers.

This is a underestimation and well, mistake we need to rectify - and quickly. We need an organization the GLBT community can really rally behind and leaders who communicate to our adversaries with the absolute truthfulness and understanding of how the media works that Warren's organization clearly has achieved. If we don't figure out how to make this happen for ourselves - we're going to find ourselves in a much more intense space than any time previously.

The religious right in this country knows that interest is waning for their influence - the younger the voter. So they've created/empowered a man like Rick Warren that makes fighting gay marriage, and in doing so regarding gays as second class, sound like the compassionate thing to do. As time passes - this battle is going to become more and more emotional; when it reaches places like the Congress, Appeals Courts and perhaps the Supreme Court - you can bet Rick Warren will be there for interests of his community.

Simply dismissing him as a hateful homophobe doesn't work. Dismissing him for any reason isn't going to make him go away. We need to meet him in the media with a rational argument with the words of our community - written for people outside of our community to understand. We need to be out, gay, compassionate and rational.

It is not hopping back in the closet time - it is time for us to grow our argument from simply "what do we want? equal rights? when do we want them?! NOW!" - to "we want civil rights now and here's why it's the RIGHT thing to do despite religious objections to gay marriage." It needs to be spelled out in a compassionate easily understood way for people outside our community. (and in a way that doesn't diminish us; or deny our gay-ness and fabulocity because thats a step backward as well)

That is a very tough bill to tow...... so.......

Where is the GLBT community's Rick Warren?

Does he or she exist, or are we stuck being apologetic talking heads on the internet and talk shows instead out in the world making gay equality sound like the 21st century civil rights battle that it truly is?

For our sake? I hope we reorganize in the stunning defeat of November's election - and find the leadership it takes to make our argument real in the minds of all Americans. Outside of the GLBT community - the argument for equal rights simply is not there yet. Strong - visible leadership is what it is going to take for the tide to turn in our favor.

In California - we needed 2.7% of the population to agree that marriage equality is the right thing for America - in other states - the number is more like 20-30%, higher in conservative states.

thanks for listening...

Comments

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

You're right. We get all bent out of shape, running around shrieking, whenever we get our open-toed sandals stepped on. You'd think we'd learn, but we're too far into the DRAMA - and, we do LOVE the DRAMA.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

but its not like we SHOULD NOT be angry.

Make no mistake IF YOU ARE NOT ANGRY RIGHT NOW YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! however...there is a time to scream and shout - but do it too long and all you are doing is throwing a tantrum.

It has now been a week or so since the decision to invite Warren. It is clear Obama's team won't rescind - so now we should be working towards - how can we turn this into an opportunity for honest debate vs. a "Rick Warren is a poophead - I Hate Obama!" pseudoconversation.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

There is another angle.

We might get angry, but is this a "deal-breaker"? Probably not. We'll be "friends" with Obama again soon. (What choice do we have?)

Meanwhile, the spotlight has been shown on Rick Warren and now that he's being seen by a wider audience, his views are being "softened" somewhat. Hmmm. Imagine that.

So, what is the end result? We've awakened a sleeping demographic group, and we've softened the hateful rhetoric. That's a win, isn't it?

[winbear.livejournal.com]

I've always enjoyed Rev. Michael Piazza in Dallas, but he doesn't preach very often anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955880aBO4U

The current pastor, Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson is pretty good though. http://www.youtube.com/user/CoHTV

"God has never made a person He didn't want to serve Christ."

[mister-don.livejournal.com]

as the old saying goes "be very careful"

Re: "God has never made a person He didn't want to serve Christ."

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

all the more reason to focus our argument against this kind of religious activism.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Robert - I couldn't agree more. This is a further distallation of the points you ... and Dan/musicbearmn ... and John/typeractivity ... and others have been making since the beginning of the past Presidental camapaign.

We need to learn from the Right's discipline and focus on message ... and somehow meld our (important) love of "hearing all voices" with the realization that - in the public sphere - the LGBT community need to figure out how to speak with one voice, and keep the infighting out of it.

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

and who gets to decide which voice? not wanting to "hear all voices" sounds to much like those we are opposing for my taste

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I dont' think focusing our message means devaluing or dismissing people's voices, Woody - I think it means that the left has yet to spawn (beyond maybe Harvey Milk) an effective spokesperson to shut the right down (like Milk did with Briggs). There is no need to take a defensive tone when folks suggest organizing tighter and not having 19 spokespeople for a single issue.

You and I both agree - marriage equality isn't where we'd prefer to be fighting. But we're given no choice here - and need to organize around this battle before they organize to come after the next right and the next. Marriage equality is only the first thing on their list - they'll come after (and are coming after) adoptive rights, reproductive rights; and somehow the left and the progressive voices need to put a stop to their advance. Even under a more progressive (center) PResident like Obama - they will continue to advance if we don't organize more effectively.

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

you are right, and I apologize to you and to joebehrsandiego for coming on to strong.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

no honey - don't apologize. We're all ramped up - it's a very intense subject and time. Equal rights for everyone is something that we SHOULD be ramped up about. Passion and urgency and opinions are VERY important.

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

*SIGH* It saddens me so that we have come to this, spending millions of dollars to be a part of the status quo instead of fighting for true equality for everyone.

[ruralrob.livejournal.com]

Probably the best post on this topic I've read anywhere on LJ, muffinman. Well done, fella!

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Thanks Rob - :) I really try to listen to ideas and talk about them. I have enjoyed the dialog these posts have created.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

Good job, Renaissance Man. Well-articulated and well-reasoned.

[ironbark.livejournal.com]

Ok Robert, you got me, I listened to nearly all of it. (I skipped all the administrivia and promotional stuff at the end)

You are of course correct, rationality and reason trumps prejudice everytime ..... eventually. Therefore it is the most dangerous form of argument.

The trouble is I think most in our community would agree with him. The two sides should agree to disagree and co-exist. That is the rational and logical conclusion. Yet you call this a more dangerous threat than the extremist viewpoint of religious dominance.

"We have much more to fear from people like Warren - than we ever did from people like Pat Robertson or James Dobson. He is the worst kind of religious conservative because he makes his views seem reasonable with a wink and a smile."

Clearly you do not "trust" him. Maybe you have good reason. I have no experience of him, I had never heard of him until the announcement of his role at the inauguration ceremony. Maybe you are right, I cannot comment.

But what I can say is that neither side is likely to get its own way entirely. Compromise has to be made on both sides.

"Marriage" has become the hot button issue and the real issues have been blurred, you tacitly acknowledge this when you say

"- it is time for us to grow our argument from simply "what do we want? equal rights? when do we want them?! NOW!" - to "we want civil rights now and here's why it's the RIGHT thing to do despite religious objections to gay marriage.""

The new Australian government last month changed some 54 laws to give same-sex partners equal status in all matters affecting them such as superannuation, welfare, access rights etc. The Bill also rewrites legal definitions of ‘couple’, ‘partner’, ‘parent’, ‘child’ and ‘family’ to include same sex arrangements. angel80 has summarised things really well.

Yet this is the same party that supported the previous conservative govt in rewriting the definition of marriage to make it explicity clear that the legislation referred to a man and a woman only.

I know politics in America are different but it does seem that this guy is offering you the next best thing and your efforts should perhaps go into making sure he sticks to his word and cannot weasel out at a later date which is what I think you really fear.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I currently don't trust Warren - he speaks in doublespeak - and actions speak so much louder than words; and currently the only ACTION I have to go on - is his financing and pulpit lecturing Californians to vote Yes on 8.

Civil Unions don't offer the same rights as marriage - and are useless on the federal level. It's dangerous ground because he religifies the argument that for many in the gay community - is not a religious issue. It is a very dangerous game of semantics.

[jwg.livejournal.com]

On July 26, 1948 President Truman signed an executive order to eliminate racial discrimination in the armed forces. It actually took until 1954 when the last all-black unit disappeared. And in 1963 another big step was taken to deal with off-base discrimination. In 1948, the military and the US government was quite well respected by the people; the effect of exposing the huge numbers of people in the armed forces and their families to an integrated environment was profound.

In 1947 Jackie Robinson became the first negro major league baseball player. Over time more players from the negro league were brought into MLB. This exposure also had a big impact.

I think actions like these that had a profound effect on reversing the plight of AfricanAmericans (called negroes or colored people at that time). Things like this set the stage for other actions by changing lots of peoples views by first hand experience.

Sadly, when Clinton became president he tried to do a similar thing for gays as he had pledged but for a number of reasons particularly about the way congress works these days and the fear if he didn't change course something worse would happen resulted in worsening the situation.

In Massachusetts the way the legislature was won over to kill the constitutional amendment attempts was with lots of contacts from many people one-by-one with the legislators telling them their stories and over time many of them changed their positions so that the last stab at an amendment was killed.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Prop 8 in California - didn't require legislative approval - it would have never reached the voters if it did - and even if it had it would have required a twothirds vote (65%) vs. the 50% +1 vote for initiatives. I am hopeful that the supreme court will nullify Prop 8 and require it to go through the state legislature - which requires a 2/3 vote it will not receive. and that gay marriage will return to California. Hopeful is a good place to be as we wait to see what happens.

Thanks for your perspective handsome!

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

I watched a speech by the Reverend Al Sharpton somewhere awhile ago. He said that we no longer have to worry about Jim Crow. No, we don't. Because now, he's "Mister James Crow, Esquire."

Anyway, it's not going to happen--progressives aren't going to come up with a Point Man or Point Woman or one single, unified message. It won't happen for any number of reasons, foremost being our varying definitions of ourselves. We quibble amongst ourselves and hold to our ideal that the Rovians and their god-bothering proletariat have just as much right to their point of view as we have to ours. In the meantime, the Religious Right sees itself as the saviour of "values" and the last outpost before Sodom & Gomorrah. They have a clearly defined enemy, a clearly defined worldview that they're defending from what they see as attack, and HUGE tactics/strategies/semantic arguments backed by endless pots of money.

I've said all along that their abilities with semantic arguments have won the day thus far. This 2008 Prez election was not a repudiation of their arguments at the social-engineering level. The proletariat got angry because the real Republicans--the ones with money, not the ones living in a trailer park and listening to Pat Robertson on a 15" TV with rabbit ears--made too much money in a deregulated financial environment and tipped the boat.

That's why the Rovians are smashing back hard on the "gay rights" issue right now (as they call it). It's much, much better than abortion for them, too, so this is where they'll focus efforts on getting the proletariat vote out for them to gain power again. Abortion mobilized the masses, but the problem is that Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned. The moment that was done at a federal level, the abortion debate would be largely ended in the eyes of the prol masses, and the proletariat Right would have no reason to continue voting against its own economic self-interest by electing those Rovian Right leaders to power.

The "gay rights" debate is better for the Rovians, as it can be fought state-to-state, there's actual fodder to put into the proletariat cannon 50 times, and it looks like the religious wing of the party is accomplishing something--call it repression, call it gay-bashing--while the Rovian politicans continue to make themselves very, very wealthy and the proletariat Right feels satisfied that they've stopped those faggots from turning this country into Sodom & Gomorrah, goddammit.

Us? We've got our ideals and our values, superior in every way. And...we've got, um...yeah, really good ideas about what's equitable and what justice means.

Right on!

[musicbearmn.livejournal.com]

right on. I will be sending you something that a friend forwarded....very interesting.

[dreammwriter.livejournal.com]

Rev. Troy Perry, UFMCC

[otterpup.livejournal.com]

Yes, there needs to be a spokesperson.

But I strongly disagree that it should be a religious leader.

Within the larger social context or "Christendom", if you will, the progressives are often marginalized. This is due to two reasons. Firstly, the progressive culture within the church is simply smaller in the USA. The second, curiously, it is because these same people prefer to perform their ministry through humble action and not through loud showmanship. Their true belief and their careful study tends to lead them away from the microphones and cameras.

Ultimately, I believe that it is the religious side of things... this appeal to a "higher power" whom none of us really knows... that has led to this current debacle of divinely-inspired disenfranchisement.

The huge mega spokesperson you need has to be able to mobilize the secular, non-religious, mainstream against the loud fundamentalist horde.

I don't have names for you, but from within the religious community, any pro-gay person will be sidelined form the get-go because he/she is beginning the conversation from a non-fundamentalist perspective (i.e. denying a literal interpretation of the bible). What I mean is, the politically active and media savvy fundamentalists won't listen to anyone but their own. There is no big-name that can tell them and/or convince them that their theology is wrong/errant/false.

Even if Jesus Christ came to earth in poverty and humility, lived his life in humble service, then humbly gave up his own body to be tortured and slain for them, they would not get it. Oh wait, that's their story, isn't it? And what do they do with it? Many of them maintain that Jesus sites out there to grant wishes of prosperity (i.e. money) and health (i.e. no sickness at all, ever). See, they're already heretics in some sense of the word, and idolaters in another (treating the bible itself with worship and person). So who's going to be able to teach them anything? Their "personal relationship with christ" has already convinced them of- and blessed them in- their mission.

The only way to keep them at bay is to make damned sure that their political activities are closely monitored, countered, reported, challenged. But you cannot stop a fundamentalist wave with a progressive one... the progressive wing of the church has been trying to do that for so many centuries now with no success. Just look at what's happened in the world of Islam. It's not entirely dissimilar (just not yet as destabilized).

Secular laws need to be supported and passed. They need to be protected and strengthened. They need to apply to all people period. Gay rights is a test case here. It is amazing to me and disheartening that Proposition 8 passed in CA because it reflects the bent-will of the electorate. A far scarier aspect of it to me is that it was such a massive collaboration of disinformation by the LDS church and the Roman Catholic church... these are diametrically opposed religious views, but they are joining forces (which requires some theological hacking) in order to "protect humanity from itself." Because, they are convinced, homosexuality is as dangerous to the species as global warming is. ARGH.

This is not a story about "gay rights", you understand. This is about the establishment of a fundamentalist "christian" theocracy right here in the USA.

And it must be stopped by one single massive joint effort.

[altf4ljdrama.livejournal.com]

:( Otterpup deleted? Crap.

Antidote

[poodler.livejournal.com]

Well, the antidotes to Rick Warren are all around us. Every straight person who vocalizes their disdain for bigotry of Homosexuality is an antidote. If we need a spokesperson a man or woman of the cloth would be a wonderful thing. I would suggest Gene Robinson. But Bishop Robinson probably does not want to stir up a hornets nest any further now that his church is fracturing due to this issue.

In our town, Huntington, New York, our Presbyterian Church split into two congregations, progressive (which still worships at the church built in the early 19th century) and conservative. I've been told that the reason for the split was the post civil war reconstruction and the issue of allowing blacks into the church. Today a gay friend of ours is a deacon at the "progressive" church. The conservative church is very active in opposing homosexuality.

I use this little history as an example of the slow crawl of progress in the course of 150 years. I doubt that there will ever be any absolute antidote to the likes of Rick Warren.

What I believe that the gay and lesbian community has to do at this point is reject ANY support for politicians who do not support same sex marriage and start recruiting gay politicians who appeal to all social groups.

We saw Milk last night. I loved it when Milk's character began every speech with "I'm Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you"! We need to find a way to do as Milk did, hold a mirror up to bigots and tell them that we will not stand idly by while they attempt to persecute us.

[altf4ljdrama.livejournal.com]

I hope we find our "Warren" soon. It was interesting to see how this issue continues to be discussed in the editorial letters to the editor in the Post Register.