People who are upset about a politician doing something they don't like that's essentially symbolic in nature -- like the selection of Rick Warren -- often have difficulty articulating to skeptics exactly what the nature of the problem is. Simply digging up more and more quotes of the offending person's offending activities doesn't answer the reply "so what? it's just symbolism..."Heh, when its not your neck getting stepped on, it's "symbolic." Here's Ezra advancing the ball:
A brief point to make is that it's very easy for a person who isn't part of the minority group that's being symbolically dissed to dismiss someone else's concerns as merely symbolic and not that big a deal. But it's worth considering how much public policy acts consistently to reaffirm the symbolic commitments of majority groups. If Barack Obama were proposing to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday and end the White House Easter Egg Hunt, nobody would be surprised to see people get very upset even though the concrete stakes would be low.
Warren is not a symbolic figure. He's a religious leader who mobilizes his flock and leverages his public influence in order to affect electoral outcomes. The most prominent example was the Proposition 8 ballot initiative -- as opposed to, say, the Proposition 8 symbolic logo design contest -- in California. Warren used his power and prestige instrumentally, not symbolically. And Obama is giving him more power, and more prestige, which he will, quite assuredly, deploy in an instrumental fashion.Meanwhile, I'd also note that the people deriding concerns about Warren as "symbolic" are the same people who were dancing in the streets when Obama won the election. When the symbolism mattered to them, they weren't spending a lot of time noting that Obama's basket of policies was really pretty standard for a Democratic candidate and so people shouldn't get exercised over the symbolism embedded in his victory.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
You know, there's also the "keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer" angle to this whole thing.
What I think a lot of people are missing is that Warren is one the milder evangelical "leaders." He may be wrong on some things, but he isn't a single minded zealot who spends all his time talking about the evils of gay marriage either.
I empathize with the "why do we need someone to pray at the inauguration anyway" crowd, but Obama is a Christian and so are most people who voted for him.
But sure: it's much more than symbolic. It's Obama tying Warren to himself in certain definite ways.
As Niebuhr would recognize, it's all instrumental. Power doesn't take "symbolic" pit stops-- it fills every moment. Here's the only valid argument for this choice:
Warren's instrumental use of Obama
It's that simple.
I'm quite torn about this, really. I agree that Warren is more than a symbol, and in my gut I agree with all the arguments against him. I wish he wasn't giving the invocation. (Ok, I wish there was no religious aspect to the inauguration at all.)
But I must point out: This is what Obama ran on. He was not unclear that this sort of thing is exactly the sort of thing that he was planning to do. He went to the forum at Warren's church, over a lot of people's protests, during the campaign. So I sympathize with the people who are angry over Warren's selection, but if this wasn't the kind of presidency you were looking for, you probably should not have voted for Obama. He's kind of being a dick here, but it's exactly the kind of dick he promised he was going to be.
My other ambivalence has to do with using so much liberal political capitol trying to ram through this gay marriage stuff at all. Not because gays don't deserve to get married. That they should be allowed is so obvious it's stifling. But that's the point. It's essentially just the old bigoted people who are pushing this thing. In ten or twenty years, when they're all dead, gay marriage will pass with flying colors. That's not right, but I'm not willing to excoriate Obama over something that he never promised anyone (insofar as he never said he supported gay marriage), and that gay people will get in the relatively near term anyway.
Dems finally win an election and they still whine.
Typical.
Let me chime in and say that I don't agree with the "Why do we need to pray at the inauguration crowd." Obama's a Christian. It's his inauguration. If he wants a prayer to kick off his presidency, good for him. If he were agnostic or something and didn't want a prayer, I'm sure no one would force that on him.
So no, it's not "only symbolic" either, because I think there is more than symbolism in asking for a blessing before embarking on the most challenging journey of one's life. And now that Wright's been denounced, and rejected, Obama probably has about as good of a relationship with Warren as he has with any other religious figure. At least publicly. Warren isn't Obama's enemy, so the keep em close angle doesn't fit. He seems to like the guy.
but more than anything else, this isn't just symbolic because like everything else BO does, it's political. For Warren it's political too. And I suppose time will tell who wins and looses politically from all of this...
Symbols matter--they always have, and no one knows this better than successful politicians. We kill each other over how our symbols are treated, so when someone says "it's just symbolic," I begin to question how they percieve the world around them.
If we learned anything from this election, isn't it that we should judge politicians by what they do and what they say, not who they associate with?
If Obama's twenty years with Rev. Wright don't indicate that Obama shares any of the Rev.'s conspiracy theories, why should inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural indicate that Obama won't be the fierce advocate for gay rights the he claims?
Also, Ezra's "symbolism" juxtaposition is a bit crap. Obama's election was symbolic that a America, as a country, chose to put a black, brilliant liberal in the White House. He wasn't appointed by anyone, the man won the biggest popularity contest in history. Obama's election stood as proof that America had the potential for its rhetoric of freedom and equality to match the reality.
In contrast, Warren's invocation is a symbol that Obama is playing for keeps. If inviting Warren gets Obama a sliver of evangelic support, and getting that sliver is what it takes to get health care reform, a working economy, a healed environment, a sane foreign policy, or expanded gay rights -- sign me up.
Imma say this one mo gin. The guy has sold over 20 million books which is supposedly a record. He hosted 1 of only 4 presidential debates. He has a mega church with over 30,000 members. He already has prestige. Saying an invocation won't give him any more than he already has. For those that think it will I would ask that they tell me with out googling who gave both of Clinton's invocations or who gave Bush 43's invocations. And in point of fact the wingnuts who actually follow Warren are pissed right now. Exhibit A
Check the comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2150348/posts
Now unless Rick Warren is going to give a speech on gay marriage and or abortion instead of an invocation I am still meh about it. When the inauguration is over he will go home and Obama wil be repealing DADT and passing the Free Choice America act. Advantage Obama.
What I don't understand is this:
Why couldn't Joseph Lowery, a central figure during the Rights movement, who has been outspoken in his support for the LGBT community, be the "symbol" Obama chooses?
I mean, yeah, he's giving the closing benediction at the inauguration, and that's a great honor. But it almost feels like he's being overshadowed by the inclusion of Warren, who -- despite some of his efforts with AIDS and disaster relief -- is still an anti-feminist homophobe, whose whole M.O. in the political sphere is one of division.
I might be wrong, but it just feels like this "post-partisan" crap is being put on a pedestal over honoring someone . . . well, honorable.
People are much more likely to remember Lowery's benediction than Warren's invocation after the fact. It's the position of higher honor.
R. Whitford
Ya know you bring up a very good point. My counter to that would be why aren't the people who are so pissed about Rick Warren trying to overshadow him with Joe Lowery? You know if every time they were asked they might, you know, mention Lowery it might actually help their cause and maybe HE would be the one getting interviewed on all of the cable news shows instead of Warren.
As it is they are treating him like dog meat, giving him no acknowledgement of even being on the program. That, to me, is a very sad thing.
Oh yeah, and let me address something else, of what Ezra said. And to some extent Matt too.
It is symbolic, I guess, but it's also the invocation. Having a pastor who probably shares the same views as every other pastor who's ever given a presidental invocation, a 2 minute long invocation, is far less symbolic than completely eliminating a decades long tradition like the Christmas Holiday. Heck, I'll bet 99.99% of the country has never even watched the invocation prior to now. Most everyone, even athiests celebrate, and love, Christmas.
Moving on to Ezra, BO was elected as POTUS. A black man, in this country, with it's history. Now that's some symbolism. Trust, if BO or TD Jakes or any other black guy was giving an invocation at McCain's inaug, NOBDY would be dancing in the streets.
To me when you have to strectch your anologies to unreasonable proportions to make your point, it says your point is weak.
In fact, Green, a black man gave the invocation for Reagan and Bush 41-- no one danced in the street (and, ironically, Peter Gomes came out in 1991).
My post above got hmtl'ed-- here's the argument:
Warren's use of Obama (is less than) Obama's use of Warren (is less than) America's use of Obama
That's the only defensible political equation for these moves, plain and simple.
R. Whitford...don't want to beat a dead horse here...but, some of the bru-ha-ha has been manufactured, and some of it's legit. The part that's manufactured is right now overshadowing everything else. This is who Obama is, i disagree with him on the issue. But i understand that, he's kind of side-winding this one, to set up something more substantial. And yes, he's giving up something of symbolic value...you should be hopefull he comes through when it counts. This discussion is getting out of hand (overall, not here). First he was the No on 8 candidate, then he was the anti-gay candidate, and now he's all of a sudden the yes on 8 candidate? Come on! The game doesn't change, the players do!
Let's say for a second that the HRC actually ran a decent campaign, they refsued let the Prop 8 proponents define the issue (as a parental privacy right issue), enough people in LA County were convinced that gay marriage was not a threat to their autonomy as parents, and Prop 8 failed.
Would there be half the outrage over this Warren pseudo-scandal as exists today?
Exactly. Rev. Joe Lowery is closing the Inauguration. He is completely acceptable and praised by "the Base."
Obama does not support gay marriage. He supports civil unions and all attendant benefits. You can disagree with him on this, but don't act surprised that this is his position.
Listen, I'm a queer secular pro-choice Jewish feminist. It's my marriage Rick Warren wants to take away. I hate the man, for his sexist opposition to women in positions of authority, his stand for forced pregnancy, his homophobia, and for the bad name his semi-literate analogizing gives to Christian theology. (Bet you weren't expecting that last one!)
But I find it pretty persuasive when a Balloon Juice commenter points out that anointing Warren as the next evangelical leader puts Dobson out in the cold and means that we'll have some evangelical leaders who aren't dead set against all progressive politics. We'll peel some evangelical votes off by emphasizing poverty and the environment, and we'll get more Democrats in Congress and more progressive programs on those issues. We'll get better policy out of it, so I'll swallow that symbol.
Ezra is right about the use Warren will make of that power, but that's only a concern insofar as Warren giving the invocation will give him a larger audience. I'm betting not. I'm betting he already has the audience and congregation he's going to get - that the major effect of tying Warren to Obama will be to make the Democrats more acceptable to evangelicals rather than the evangelicals more acceptable to the Democrats. So ok. I'll trust Obama to make that decision right now. If we start getting bad policy out of the deal, that'll be the time to get mad.
And Shine, of course people are angrier because Prop 8 won. If Warren looked like an ineffective bigot, we'd care much less about giving him a little more status.
And we just thought Obama was kidding around when he said we could disagree without being disagreeable? How did people think that would work out in real life?
So who is the acceptable substitute to Warren that was also opposed to gay marriage, or stem cell research, or choice?
Or is this all about we won, so now we're gonna take names and kick ass because we're all pissed off about being called un-American since Nixon won? Is it payback that is wanted here?
Yes I get why people are upset. But unless they are going to take up arms, they have already switched to the premise that there is another way to get to where they want to go. Maybe someone can ask Dr. Lowery about that. He's got the last word that day.
Maybe this is on a whole other level. Obama LIKES Rick Warren. I'm a minister, and people like me, or don't like me, on a whole level beyond whether they agree with me.
Obama likes ministers who push him. Rev. Wright, it seemed, was a push on Obama to keep a black consciousness alive in his thinking, in contradiction to a majoritarian point of view.
I am not sure what Rick Warren represents to Obama, probably something like keeping a consciousness of faith and Christian duty alive in a mind that will become increasingly pragmatic and instrumental and materialist.
I doubt very much that Obama likes Rick Warren because he needs to keep a reminder of anti-gay bigotry handy.
The relationship to a minister is different than any other relationship -- people assume that the minister represents something that is lacking in themselves, which they either aspire to, or wish to be reminded of.
Symbolicly, of course the Warren selection sucks, because it fails to recognize gays who need that recognition right now.
To all of you that think that the controversy is manufactured and that the opinions and feelings of others don't count, or that the just shut the f..k out for the common good: this actitud is very, very, very common and you most likely will find yourself in the receiving end of the "get-over-it" stick.
Good luck
as a gay guy I certainly feel slighted or pissed by the choice of warren and y'all have done great work debating all that above...
But shit, as an Gay American, as a citizen, I am more upset that Obama has chosen someone who openly calls for the assassination of Ahmandinejad to be a 'spiritual leader' at a national event. what the hell kind of symbolism is that.
It isn't that people's feelings about the Warren controversy don't count, it's that in this instance they are incredibly shallow and knee-jerk and hyperbolic and not forward-thinking.
What's truly weak sauce is pretending that Warren giving the intro is SO FRICKING IMPORTANT! while also pretending that Lowery giving the outro doesn't matter at all.
Fact is, Obama has to govern not just the people that voted for him, but the entire country. And Warren and Lowery both represent large chunks of his constituents, and it seems perfectly reasonable to have the give what are sure to be uncontroversial prayers that would be quickly forgotten if this outcry wasn't drumming up publicity for them.
Where was this outcry when Obama did the debate with Warren?
Whatever, I'm 100% gay rights but it's nothing new to see the proponents of gay rights lose the forest for the trees. Obama inviting Warren is about reconciliation, and yet so many act like they don't want reconciliation, all they want is war. It's sad, because all they are doing is ceding the middle ground to Warren, who admittedly doesn't deserve it. But next to this ridiculous outcry, he looks like a moderate. Nice work guys.
Okay, all of you who are wondering why this is such a big issue?
The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
I'm sitting here at my desk in tears, because these fucking assholes can't even let me say be happy with having made it in before Prop 8. No, they want to rip up my marriage license--and you know I'm not getting my $171 back!--and make it real clear that I'm just a fucking dyke who doesn't deserve to be happy or treated just like anyone else.
That's what Rick Warren is saying. And Obama is saying that telling me I'm not worthy of being a full citizen is just a "disagreement".
This whole argument seems like a no win situation. I have a question. If the guy administering the invocation were a Church of God in Christ minister would the issue still be getting as much play in public discourse?
Does the outrage against Warren have anything to do with the fact that he is a safe target? Warren can be lampooned and attacked for his views, which although reprehensible are much more moderate than some of his ilk, without the danger of anyone that attacks him being called a racist. I think that of the potential ministers that could have been chosen Warren is a reasonably safe choice. No choice would have made everyone happy but at least Warren is a figure that encourages public discourse.
I don't understand why people are surprised by this choice. I don't like Rick Warren or his views on gays any more than most progressives but this whole situation has become so over the top. Obama likes the the guy, so what. My best friend is a card carrying Republican with a decidedly dicey view of gays, the war and affirmative action but that hasn't stopped us from being friends and standing up for each other at our respective weddings. I continue to reach out her and have open communication with her about what I believe as she does with me. Obama isnt trying to slap anyone in the face and he actually appears to be trying too not slap any hands away. Last thing. When a guy promises to reach out to the other side hopefully people will actually believe him and gird their loins for what's to come.
Well, at least it got Blago out of the headlines!
BTW John Cloud of TIME magazine just went on air on MSNBC with David Shuster and called Barack Obama a bigot which evidently he had already written in an article and then proceeded to stenuously defend saying it. Like I said, that kinda sh!t is for the birds. I wonder what life would have been like for 4 years for John Cloud if John McCain would have won.
@drose
You need a marriage license to make you feel like a full citizen? To be honest, I felt like a full citizen after my divorce decree became final. lol! Until the marriage winds blow back in your direction (because they will), you and your wife make yourselves
happy, treat each other well. Prop 8 and Rev. Saddleback should not steal your joy.
Remember last spring when Barack Obama did that little hand movement where he brushed something off his shoulder? Millions and millions of people around me connected it instantly, while I had to have it explained to me.
The Rick Warren discussion here feels to me like a similar shoe on a different foot. A vast portion of the country "gets it," and is surprised to discover that another vast portion doesn't.
As a liberal Christian living in a southern small town, I don't have to read Warren's books or share his thinking on key issues to know that he's a giant in the landscape I live in.
Rick Warren is by far the biggest, most important evangelical moving on the national stage. Billy Graham is bigger and more beloved, but he's too frail to come out of the wings on January 20. Warren is the also the nation's second biggest adviser on how to live well, with only Steven Covey being bigger.
If he were a senator, he'd be Ted Kennedy. If he were a talk show host, he'd be Oprah. If he was a rock group, he'd be the Beatles. He's huge.
The President-elect clearly understood that the two prayers needed to come from people with different politics. For the benediction by a supporter, he had a half-dozen options. For the invocation by a non-supporter, Rick Warren really was the right guy.
Everyone wasting their time talking about Rick Warren just shock me how stupid we are on the left sometime. For 5 mins out of the entire year the News and Americans are talking about Gay Rights. And the only thing coming out of the Gay Community is anger. Or at least the only thing being played by the media.
This is where the Gay Rights community fails, it has no leader to take their message to the masses. No, Martin Luther King who everyone knows and can come to as a voice for the struggle.
Right now the current stuff you're hearing makes the gay rights community seem like a pack of wounded animals snapping back, instead of the organized movement it needs to achieve it's goals.
And Obama is giving him more power, and more prestige, which he will, quite assuredly, deploy in an instrumental fashion.
Quick, name a previous invocation prayer giver who leveraged that mighty office to change a national policy. Or a state policy. Or a local zoning restriction.
Meanwhile, I'd also note that the people deriding concerns about Warren as "symbolic" are the same people who were dancing in the streets when Obama won the election.
I didn't vote for Obama as a symbol. I voted for him because he's a sensible centrist who doesn't get bogged down in partisan sniping, by action as well as stated intent.
Everyone wasting their time talking about Rick Warren just shock me how stupid we are on the left sometime.
It's like a massive purity test applied to everyone the administration might work with--in November we were laughing at the Republicans' yurt and their plans to drive even more insufficiently pure conservatives from its teeny confines, and this month it's all about who's unworthy to speak or work with--we can turn this big tent into a yurt! Gain power and the left yank their cannons off the Republicans and turn them on each other, it's a truism, but I thought we could at least wait until after Jan 20.
Having Warren speak represents the old politics of division, bigotry, triangulating, and pandering to dangerous religious extremists.
Warren's involvement will be the only thing I will remember about this inauguration for the simple reason that I now will refuse to watch it. I hope the people who attend will boo that bigot every minute he is flapping his gums.
My main frustration isn't that Warren's presence is an immediate insult to GLBT Americans; it's that I fear his invitation is a harbinger of the direction his administration will take on these issues.
And before you link me to Obama's platform claiming its ridiculous for me to question his commitment on GLBT issues, it isn't about his positions; it's about how he'll politically prioritize his initiatives over the next four (or eight years). What this says to me is that Obama believes it is important at his inauguration to have the blessing of an extremely popular evangelical figure with admirably independent views on the environment and abhorrent, hateful views regarding GLBT Americans and a woman's right to choose (views with which Obama does not agree). That doesn't trouble some people, but it troubles me.
It sort of leads me to my non-empirical, gut feeling about what President Obama's record will be on on GLBT issues at the end of his presidency: passage of a hate crimes bill and some mid- to upper-mid level GLBT appointments. He won't use time in his State of the Union addresses to ask Congress to make changes on GLBT issues. I don't believe he'll pass ENDA, repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, or make even incremental changes for federal legal recognition of same-sex relationships. He won't push the conservative congressional Democrats, the Ike Skeltons and Chet Edwards of the world, to vote for these bills, because "we need to respect the views of those who disagree with us without being disagreeable", and "there are serious challenges we have to address to help all Americans, not just the few."
To be fair, I'm not someone who then draws the conclusion out of this feeling "...and therefore, Obama is a bad man who should not be president." I voted for Obama, and I had this gut feeling before the election. What his selection of Warren makes me fear is that Obama is a standard national Democrat, willing to give lip service to GLBT Americans to gain their money and labor in elections, but not willing enough to take the seriously bold stand that their equality is important.
Again, that doesn't mean I despise Obama; I think he will be a good, and potentially great, president. But as a gay man, Obama's invitation to Warren isn't change I can believe in; it's change that I sadly expect.
@RMG,
Spot on, brother --or sister-- spot on.
Just like to add: Obama is a politician, a very talented one, a hell of a smart guy with the right instincts in a lot of things. But he is a politician, people, not the second incarnation of Jesus. They count votes and money, you know. They may love to do this or that but there are always pressures and circumstances and elections to win this year or the next one. And you know, those evil Reps will attack me then. So the best of them may spend political capital for some things they believe very strongly or for things that will bring them even more political capital to win the next election.
Obama may pass DODT if the Army is on board, if 75% of the public is on board, if this does not interfere with some other legislation he cares more about. But the idea that he will be a "fierce advocate for gay rights" is simply not true.
Hey, he could have cut a 30 sec commercial against Prop 8. But there was an election to win.
What we gays cannot do is to roll over and shut up.
Tavis Smiley used to have a very good program in NPR. In 2003 they were talking about the 40 years of the "I have a dream speech" of MLK. One of the guys that were there said that the Kennedy admin were somehow sympathetic but nothing more. They were like nervous spectators of sorts. Well, this is more or less where we gays are now. We need to keep pushing guys. It is on us.
I find the Warren pick troubling, particularly in light of his ridiculous views on homosexuality. But let's take a step back for a moment, and recall that as of January 21st, 2009, Rick Warren will be a man who said a 2 minute prayer on TV the day before, and Barack Obama will be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I think equating the symbolism of those two things is foolish.
The real problem is that there are many americans that want to strip a small minority of their peers of fundamental legal rights (to marry, to serve in the military, etc.) I think Obama is trying to be inclusive, and civil toward christians in general. I understand people who object to Rick Warren, but let's save the outrage for a time when Obama really does something that might directly affect the lives of gay Americans, like allowing the continuation of DADT, or supporting federal bans on domestic partnership benefits. I'm still smarting from the Prop 8 debacle (thanks Rick!) but let's give Obama a shot. He could still be an ally...
"Okay, all of you who are wondering why this is such a big issue?
The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
I'm sitting here at my desk in tears, because these fucking assholes can't even let me say be happy with having made it in before Prop 8. No, they want to rip up my marriage license--and you know I'm not getting my $171 back!--and make it real clear that I'm just a fucking dyke who doesn't deserve to be happy or treated just like anyone else."
I'm sorry Darkrose.
It's a cold-blooded bit of business and I'm sorry that you have to deal with it.
I'm a heterosexual married man but I donated a bit of money towards "No on 8". I wish that I could have done a lot more.
If the politics of inclusion means we have to include bigots at the highest level of prestige, then I vote we go back to the winning side sticking it to the vanquished.
When you are a leader, a real leader, you stand up for the rights of all those you represent and govern. You don't make cowardly moves like bringing in somebody who speaks up for the rights of some you represent and then balancing that out with somebody who fights to keep them down.
I don't care how hot-button this topic is, treating gay people, or any group of people, like second-class citizens just because you don't approve of what they do with a part of their lives that is absolutely none of your damn business is 100% wrong and if Barack Obama were half the leader we all want to believe he is, he would stand up and say that.
I mean, goodness, there wouldn't even be that much political capital for him to lose here if he did it, the evangelicals already hate him anyway.
As TNC would say, weak sauce -- to about the 100th degree, IMO.
I'm sorely disappointed and the more I think about it, the more upset I get.
To everyone on this thread and others talking about inclusion and balance and how he "had" to do this, I must ask, "Why?" I see absolutely no reason, political or otherwise, why he "had" to put a man who is inarguably extremely divisive, and also an agent and symbol of oppression for a sizeable demographic, into a position of great honor at his inauguration.
What's next? At some other big event, are we going to see this administration "balance out" a speaker who supports religious freedom with another who believes we should criminalize Islam and burn every copy of the Koran in the interest of national security?
Again, WEAK SAUCE!
Yay devildownunder - true dat
I confidently expect the President-elect to make a speech within two years that says "When a patriotic citizen with valuable skills wants to serve his or her country in military uniform, the right American answers are 'Yes' and "Thank You'. We have major challenges worldwide, and we're going to face those challenges with the best we've got."
If he makes that step as "President of those who voted for me," it will unravel. There's little chance that this Congress will undo it, but some races could heat up for 2010. There's more chance that it could be a political football in 2012, and even more that the president elected in 2016 could turn back the clock.
He has to be "President of the United States" when he takes DODT down.
When Rick Warren walks to the microphone, he will demonstrate to vast numbers of conservatives that Obama is that president, legitimately elected, the guy for whom Saint Paul directed them to pray, a guy they are supposed to respect even when they disagree. They'll see the whole inauguration differently as a result.
Inviting Warren was right as a principled embodiment of unity across major disagreements, and it was right as a pragmatic preparation for making the change we need, including an end to DODT.
The removal of DODT would once again make the military the most integrated of institutions in American life. The funny thing is that current EO policy is more than strong enough to handle extension to anti-gay discrimination.
@Sporcupine
"If he makes that step as "President of those who voted for me," it will unravel. There's little chance that this Congress will undo it, but some races could heat up for 2010. There's more chance that it could be a political football in 2012, and even more that the president elected in 2016 could turn back the clock."
You've just made my case for skepticism about Obama going to the mattress for DODT. Look how you are making political calculations with the issue. Imagine Obama who is, well, a politician.
It is never a good time to push for gay rights legislation. We are few and the Rep. Party is unacceptable anyway, a lot of people really, really dislike us and many of our allies don't like the fact that supporting us on this or that may cost them with the people that don't like us. And so it is always: wait, in two years we will do it. And so, after two years of democratic congress DADT hasn't even make it to subcommittee in the senate or house. And the Obama team is talking now 2010. We will wait and see then if there isn't some other pressing issue.
And don't even think about venting your frustration!
Sporcupine: if your argument is that Obama has to build up his credibility among Americans with ambivalence or hostility to GLBT issues before he can lead on GLBT issues, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. All I can tell you is in my experience, while "keep your enemies closer" sounds so great on paper, politicians who do that sort of thing (on any issue) are more in thrall to those constituencies than they are developing an opportunity to oppose them.
Getting a little more evidence based about why I don't think Obama will act on Don't Ask Don't Tell: from everything I've read, the main political road block to repealing DADT isn't public opposition or even GOP opposition - it's strong opposition from military and veterans constituencies and those who represent them, like House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton, who supports DADT (see here and here). Obama has pretty consistently answered questions about repealing DADT by saying he wants to "consult and work with our generals" before making any decisions on repealing the policy, which doesn't make me optimistic - if we need a majority or plurality of military leadership publicly to support a repeal of DADT before it happens, then I look forward to the passage of the Military Fairness and Readiness Act of 2042.
To be fair: I do think the hate crimes bill could be passed in his first term. It's a priority for Congressional leadership, has broad public support, has passed Congress once before and will come up in a substantially more Democratic (and slightly more progressive) Congress. But to me, acting on the hate crimes bill is not the strongest of leadership, because any Democratic president could likely get it done without too much difficulty.
I was happy to see the emergence of "Intelligent Design" because it's strength was a measure of the decline of the truly loony "Creation Science" and a return to the more open Christian attitudes of Darwin's day.
Similarly, the rise of Warren marks the decline of the more militant, force versus persuasion, tendencies of the Falwells, Dobsons, etc. This shift is not bringing more people into Christian fundamentalism, but is a welcome shift within it.
Eduardo and RMG,
My expectation on DODT is based on believing that Obama is sincerely committed, assuming that he's going to be tempted to say it's not a good time yet, and expecting that advocates are going to stay fiercely on his case to make sure that temptation doesn't win for long. It's not naive hope: it's hope that counts votes, phone calls, and blog comments as well as watching the man himself.
On marriage, I'm less sure he'll use the bully pulpit in his first term. The pressure should keep coming, and also good arguments to a law professor about how silly it is to create two sets of statutes that are completely identical except for the headings "marriage" and "union." Second term, I expect serious action, because he'll have the strength to make it work.
Meanwhile, though, let me be clear that my support on Rick Warren is not about tricking Warren or anyone who likes him. It's not about giving them the illusion that they're welcome. It's about actually welcoming them and actually seeing them as fellow citizens we respect and whose company we value. It's easy to celebrate people who agree with us and harder to value those who can push us to sorrow and to rage--but we really are supposed to do it, especially at inaugurations.
It's not about fishing for a few extra votes. It's about celebrating the fact that we share the country with people who may vote against us every single time for as long as we all live. It's not a show. It's a substantive, foundational, necessary American value, embodied in Warren leading us in prayer for a President he didn't vote for, and who will enact policies Warren plans to fight. When Obama is the American about to swear the oath, Warren is the right very different American to pray for for us all.
RMG says
Any thoughts on what the invitation of Joe Lowery is a harbinger of?
Something Sorn brought up made me wonder what would the reaction be if Obama invited the Pope or the highest ranking American Catholic to deliver a prayer. The Catholic church is just as opposed to gay marriage and abortion as Warren. While the church may not have been as visible to many as Warren and evangelicals, the Catholic church's political reach is far greater than any one of those on the religious right.
While I strongly sympathize with those who did get married or wish to one day, I just have to wonder why any of this is that shocking. Obama campaigned with Donnie McClurkin and Obama didn't hide that his definition of marriage is that it is between man and woman.
doesn't this argument about this being a boon to Warren and the social-religious right only hold if it really does increase Warren's influence and prestige and legitimacy, beyond where it already is, rather than being a consequence of his already being in possession of those things in abundance and (effectively) representing millions of evangelicals? I guess his selection does sort of suppose that he DOES represent all evangelicals, which is not exactly true and therefore does increase his power, but honestly - what evangelical preacher could you choose who represents them better? no matter WHO you pick as an evangelical representative, it would be someone who holds warren's views on social issues vis a vis public policy.
to me, that means that this was obama's choice here: totally exclude evangelicals from his inauguration and thus make them feel snubbed by his presidency at its outset, or simply include them, millions of Americans that they are, in the festivities. and if you include them in a significant way, such as by picking one of theirs for an invocation-giver, you can still pick someone different to finish it off, a la Lowery, as was done. One could make the argument that the evangelicals SHOULD be left out and shunned because they're wrong on the issues, but even if they're wrong, frankly there are too many of these people in America not to try to engage with them and change their minds, as difficult and long a road as that might be.
Besides - who will care ten months or three years down the road? i take the point that although it is symbolic, it is important because of the great significance of this event in everyone's minds, but still, he's basically a priest opening an official ceremony - a formality. i really can't wait until all this speculation - about where obama really stands and what he can really do and will he sell us all out and what compromises will he have to make - subsides. can't wait 'til the man becomes President for real, and has like a year or two to actually give it a shot, and maybe get some positive things done.
I don't think Obama should have attended the "Global AIDS Summit" at Warrren's church in the first place. Why get behind the evangelical approach to AIDS activism, which works against the goals of said activism? They are against HIV prevention (no condoms, no sex ed). And they are against marriage for gay couples (anti-monogamy, in message at least).
Look there are some people with whom you're just not going to find common ground. There's no "compromise" on gay marriage. There's no "compromise" on sex ed, or condom distribution, etcetera, etcetera. Sometimes you have take sides.
Andrea
The Global AIDS Summit is called Global because they bring in speakers many of them experts on AIDS from all of the world to try to combat AIDS not just evangelicals. To not go would have been irresponsible on Obama's part. This is just getting silly now
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Global-Summit-on-AIDS--26-The-Church-Calls-for-Public--Private-and-Parish-Sectors-To-Unite-in-Response-to-Worldwide-Pandemic-3A-Pastor-Rick-and-Kay-Wa-7347-1/
Okay, I hear you. Why can't we make this deal:
- The gays agree to accept that is reasonable to think that Obama is just reaching out to the evangelical community and that he is, indeed, fierce in his support of the gay community.
- The "reachers" agree to accept that the hurt and anger of the gays are valid and justified and that given the history we have had with uncountable democratic politicians our skepticism is also reasonable.
And then we agree to disagree for the time being. And that we will see what Obama does and then either the gays acknowledge that you were right and everyone is happy or you join us to push him to make the our Union more perfect.
@sgwhiteinfla
I know it is totally ridiculous and unrealistic to say Obama shouldn't have gone. But that's how I feel about it. The politics behind the AIDS effort of the Bush administration---which Warren was heavily involved in---includes denying funds for organizations that promote sex ed, needle swaps...those sorts of things. So while I think it's great that Warren raises money for the cause, and supports mission work, I think he undermines those efforts by using his political influence to block support for organizations he disagrees with. I'll try to get you some links to articles later, but I've gotta leave now...
Andrea
What you are talking about has nothing to do with the Global Aids Summit though and I welcome your response when you return.
Eduardo
I think thats what some of us have been trying to say from the onset.
Agreed
@sgwhiteinfla
Great. I think by now most everything that needed to be said has been said and that continuing with this is wasting emotional energy.
So will reconvene, in, say, June 2010?
sgwhiteinfla: I think it's great that Lowery is there; his presence reminds me of my hopes for Obama's presidency. But Obama's professed pragmatism/centrism, his language in talking about GLBT issues (before the election and now), and having "respect for all sides" in discussing Warren leads me to take him at his word that he wants to include the views of people who disagree with him in his administration, or that makes me believe he's going to compromise based on their objections, either of which would lead to the same outcome. In other words, Warren's blessing doesn't make me doubt an otherwise solid record of commitment; it's one more piece of evidence that confirms my belief that GLBT issues (and the very serious, very hard fights that will accompany them) won't be a priority.
I remember, during the primary, one of the arguments Hillary Clinton (and I think Joe Biden, too) made on DADT was that, for it's time in 1993, it was a progressive act of governance that also found common ground with good Americans who had serious moral objections that we had to respect and take seriously, even if we disagreed with them. I would disagree, but my belief (partially based on evidence, but also on gut feeling, which is know is not empirical or easy to take really seriously in an argument) is that that's the kind of tact and angle on which Obama will approach GLBT issues.
We're going to get DADT within two to three years because that's where the movement is at, and where it has moved the country. The Congressional leadership and other key voices are going to be there, whether Obama is ready or not.
Obama kissing Warren's ass is not a necessary or helpful step for that. And using his future signing of DADT to justify Obama's move here not only misreads the politics, it misreads Obama's role and grants him credit and an outsize position of influence on these issues he does not deserve. Right now, Obama is not leading on gay issues, The least he could do is stand out of the way. Just sign the bill when it gets there, O.
By the way, I disagree that Warren is "praying for us all". His prayer for me is that the gay goes away.
RMG
I get what you are saying but I think people are overestimating the ability of the dissenting voices to change Obama's mind and underestimating his ability to stand up to him. Remember the story of when Petraeus was trying to tell him that the troops needed to stay in a way that he thought would intimidate Obama but instead Obama went right back at him with his own opinion on need for troop withdrawals? To me that shows that no matter what he does in public, behind the scenes he has courage.
As far as DADT, I won't defend the move itself but I will say that because prior to that there was actually NO protections for gay people serving in the military that DADT by definition was progressive. It just wasn't close to being progressive enough.
Re: "Obama's a Christian"
I don't believe that. I don't think he's religious at all. To him religion is just politics. Anybody who is willing to use an invocation as an opportunity to pander doesn't really respect prayer.
I don't think Obama will ever waste his time with any religious leader who doesn't have at least 8,000 people in his church.
Analysis: Having Warren speak represents the old politics of division, bigotry, triangulating, and pandering to dangerous religious extremists.
Solution: I hope the people who attend will boo that bigot every minute he is flapping his gums.
Yeah, THAT will certainly put an end to "division and bigotry." Let's silence, censor, and boo anyone who doesn't have the "correct" views on social issues. That's worked out real well for the right.
Deborah is dead right: Only American Left would conduct a purge after they win. Unreal. Progressives are just as delusional as Conservatives in thinking that an electoral majority for their candidate equates to near universal agreement for their values.
@sgwhiteinfla
They aren't totally unrelated to the point I was making. In any case, the most recent article I read was from yesterday:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism
I believe it was NPR who did the original story on this, so you might check their website. I'll revisit more later if you have trouble digging up more.
The day that 25% of evangelicals say "You know, I don't really like gay people, but I guess they're US citizens and deserve to be treated as such" is the day we win. If this Warren thing helps bring this about, then great, and if this is a harbringer for Obama passing horrific laws against gays, then boo.
All throughout the last two years, there's been pepole wondering why Obama's sacrificing a pawn, while he's 10 steps ahead looking at decapitating the king. Now, even taking a long-run view of things, we need to be respectful that in the short-run, it REALLY sucks to be the pawn. Telling the pawn to STFU is a bigger slap in the face than the slight of the Warren move, imo.
One thing that has only been mentioned in a few places is the culture of manufactured victimization that pervades the evangelical community. Sure they are opposed to gay marriage and abortion rights, but they really get hopping mad that somewhere, some liberal is looking down their noses at them. And they self sort into their communities, their churches, their schools, and to those in these insular bubble communities all liberals are boogymen and demons to be destroyed. Any public policy that makes liberals happy must be bad public policy, and any policy that makes liberals angry must be great. To the extent that that bubble is popped a little bit by the Warren maneuver - that some fraction of the younger, mildly more progressive evangelicals that follow Warren is receptive to the idea that liberals are not boogeymen - then getting progressive and liberal policies passed becomes that much easier.
Some progressive are very concerned that this invocation grants "legitimacy" to Warren's views (of course, a few months ago we were arguing how Obama's desire to meet with dicatators didn't grant them legitimacy, but I digress), but we should also think about what sort of legitimacy this grants to Obama's presidency and his ability to pass his agenda. Now, there's definetly a gamble involved here, and trade-offs, but the upside is the potential crumbling of the single most obstinate barrier to progressive policies in this country. I've seen enough cleverness and non-myopic thinking on the part of Obama to give him the benefit of the doubt in the short-run, but it seems like we can give him the benefit of the doubt while still recognizing that this is a sleight to the gay community.
Good points, TheF79. I'd add only that liberals also self-select, hide in a bubble, and view "the other" as boogeymen and demons to be destroyed (see above for some examples).
Having Warren involved with Obama is good for both conservatives AND liberals, just as increasing ROTC presence on elite college campuses would be good for both the colleges AND the military.
We can learn from everybody - except maybe the guy who claims to already know everything.
Is not part of the problem that we don't know what Obama is going to say in his address? One way of looking at this is to say that Obama has created an opportunity for himself. With a captive audience and what will almost certainly be an enthsiastic crowd he can stress a commitment to gay rights and he can do it with with a man who doesn't recognize the full range of those rights beside him - seemingly endorsing his point. In other words he could be making pro gay marriage viewpoint that little bit more acceptable in the eyes of the significant portion of American society that hold the views Warren holds.
"Re: "Obama's a Christian"
I don't believe that. I don't think he's religious at all. To him religion is just politics. Anybody who is willing to use an invocation as an opportunity to pander doesn't really respect prayer.
I don't think Obama will ever waste his time with any religious leader who doesn't have at least 8,000 people in his church."
Cynical much?
This isn't a pander. This is reaching out to a demographic the Dems have struggled with in recent years, and that Obama has already made inroads with. These people are all around, and although some are raving about how Warren is the Great False Prophet, others are stepping back and wondering if this Obama guy is as bad as they were told. Don't underestimate the value of peeling away even 5% of the evangelical vote from the Republican party. That combined with demographic changes could win Texas.
But that's almost beside the point I want to make. Dismissing Warren's selection as merely symbolic is weaksauce, but outright dismissing someone's stated religious beliefs is even weaker.
Lol Obama is setting up a big pro-gay statement in the address! As if he needs to put Warren on the stage in order to do it. Oh, but he wants a bigger audience for his big pro-gay statement! Yeah, right. Obama may say something pro-gay now, but it will be because of the outrage, not because of some original secret plan. And I'm not going to be holding my breath for anything more than the usual broad rhetoric (or easy specifics like hospital visits...gee, thanks, fierce advocate Obama!).
As to Obama's gains among Warren's constituency, they are largely mythical. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15604.html
Hell, if you're going to sell me out for votes, at least get real results. It's far too easy to justify the pander by hypothesizing some 5% draw of evangelical voters away from the R's.
Andrea
I understand what Rick Warren does with his personal AIDS outreach but my point is he invited guests from all over the world to the Global AIDS Summit and many of them DO support things like condom distribution to help curb the number of new cases of AIDS. You took exception to Obama going there based on what Warren's own personal AIDS outreach vision is. But its likely that by going Obama himself had th opportunity to talk to some of the leaders of AIDS prevention around the world and learn something from them. Now if you have a critique of the actual conference I will be happy to read it. But otherwise I think my point has been made that Obama did nothing wrong by going to the Summit and it was more than likely the right thing to do. Don't forget that Hillary was there too.
I don't think thats the point. Obama doesn't need to set out a major 'pro-gay' agenda for what I said to be true; when he makes the reference he may well state his position on the matter. He will do so with Warren with him not opposing him. And its not about winning over Warren's constitents in general (at least in this respect) its about trying to get something done. That comes down to whether or not you believe Obama's claims of wanting to take action on gay-rights. My impression is that the Warren selection has made a lot of people question that, which is understandable but doesn't take into consideration the fact that this is how Obama seems to like to work.
anon
Do you REALLY believe that Barack "the socialist, terrorist, sympathizer, mooslem, follower Rev GD America Wright's hate theology" Obama getting the same percentage of evangelical white votes as Kerry and Gore is NOT a gain for him?
regardless of your race I have to say,
Nigga please!
@sgwhiteinfla:
"The Summit, held the past three years at Saddleback Church, was strategically and historically unique, built entirely around a practical “local church-based” strategy designed to mobilize millions of congregations around the world for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. In addition to my primary calling to proclaim the Gospel message, these Civil Forums further my three other life goals: helping individuals accept responsibility, helping the Church regain credibility and encouraging our society to return to civility,” Warren said.
Anyone can organize an event, especially if they're fortunate enough to have celebrity and status. Rick Warren definitely has some pull and can bring people from all over the world together. I would never object to any attempt at exchanging ideas and awareness. But what did they accomplish at this event aside from giving their keynote speeches?
Aside from that, there are SO MANY events that take place, all over the world, by many organizations, including AIDS activist orgs. And the high profile people don't go to many of them; they must choose. But they showed up for Rick Warren's event. I'd rather hope that they'd make a different choice---a different organization to get behind---than the Saddleback Church.
But of course, this is just my opinion. I don't expect others to agree with me.
Andrea
This is killing me because the last thing I am trying to do here is defend Rick Warren. But I do believe he is a lot more reasonable about the reality of AIDS whether he actually implements it in his own plan. Check out this website. It pretty clearly shows that he knows condom distribution saves lives. Probably because he says just that. Doesn't stop him from being an asshole though.
http://www.hivandthechurch.com/en-US/SLOW_and_STOP/STOP_not_SLOW_is_key.htm
sgwhiteinfla,
Yes, I really believe that. Particularly since racial bias in that subset of voters has very effectively been used against the Democratic party, generally, especially at the presidential level. That's why "welfare queens" bs works for Reagan against white man Carter. And so on and so forth.
But hey, if you just want to pick an arbitrary starting handicap and then give Obama credit for surpassing it (apparently also attributing those gains to his pandering, while ignoring any expected vote gains that should have resulted from this being an undeniable wave year), I guess he's pretty much going to come off as the genius here. I'll just wait quietly to see how his secret plan for us GLBT folks unfolds.
anon
LOL yeah you're right Obama didn't have ANY obstacles in his way.
By the way, his plan ain't secret. Its right there on the website
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
I have been following sgwhiteinfla and Andrea's conversation about the role of Evangelicals in HIV/AIDS programs with interest. I am a secular progressive and a strong believer in contraception, but I think we have to give credit where credit is due, and the fact is that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which not only has provided 2 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, but which also distributes more condoms than any other donor government (I believe PEPFAR has procured more than 2 billion condoms over the past 5 years).
I should add that the evidence supporting the role of condoms in HIV prevention in generalized epidemics such as those of East and Southern Africa is pretty thin, since most HIV transmissions take place in the context of relatively stable partnerships where condom use is rare. There is even some evidence that increased condom availability actually encourages people to engage in risky sex (meaning sex with a risky partner) that they might otherwise avoid; this is called disinhibition.
The approach which is most effective in reducing HIV incidence and prevalence in Africa is not condoms or abstinence but rather partner reduction (called "being faithful" in PEPFAR.) Abstinence education has relatively little impact since it is usually targeted to adolescents, but most new HIV infections occur in adults. HIV is transmitted most efficiently when people have multiple concurrent partners; the kind of sexual network that develops forms a "superhighway" which facilitates HIV transmission.
@sgwhiteinfla: "This is killing me because the last thing I am trying to do here is defend Rick Warren."
I know the thing you're trying to defend. And you're probably right. No, you're right, I'm sure of it. It's just that I'm not getting to the heart-of-the-matter the way I should (busy day) so we're not really having a proper debate; totally my fault, to be sure. But trust me, I'm right about something, just give me some time.
@KCN: "we have to give credit where credit is due, and the fact is that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which not only has provided 2 million people with lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, but which also distributes more condoms than any other donor government (I believe PEPFAR has procured more than 2 billion condoms over the past 5 years).
Gee I wonder who supplied them with those statistics?
By picking Warren to give the invocation, and thereby incurring the wrath of progressives, Obama gets street cred with religious conservatives, without having to actually take any sort of conservative policy position. Very shrewed. Also annoying.
But while am annoyed that Obama is having Rick Warren give the invocation, I am more concerned about the actual policies Obama will push for. Obama has not been a perfect proponent of LGBT civil rights, supporting civil unions rather than marriage. But if he can bring about the end of Don't ask, don't tell, and recognize same-sex civil unions on the federal level, he will have brought us a few steps closer to equality. I say let Obama have Warren give the invocation. Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction, the last word, and he supports same-sex marriage. (YEAH!) How's that for symbolism?
Re: it's one more piece of evidence that confirms my belief that GLBT issues (and the very serious, very hard fights that will accompany them) won't be a priority.
There are, what?, maybe four GLBT issues on the table: ENDA, hate crimes legislation, the end of DADT, and gay marriage/civil unions (which at the federal level means repealing the DOMA). I think there's a very high probability that ENDA will pass, that DADT will be ended, and that sexual orientation will be added to existing hate crimes statutes at the federal level. None of these will be "a priority" in the sense that the economic stimulus package or Obama's healthcare proposals will be a priority-- and that's the way it should be. But they will get done. As far as marriage goes I suspect the current stalemate will continue for quite some time, though it would not surprise me to see some nibbling around the edges of the issuse, such as extending the tax breaks for health insurance premiums to same sex couples in either a tax reform bill or as part of the healthcare overhaul. (That could be worded in a way that it would not run afoul of DOMA). Meanwhile let's not start pasing judgement of the Obama adminsitration until it's actually a going concern and we have a real track record, or lack thereof, to judge it by.
JonF:
Maybe you didn't read upthread on my earlier comment about hate crimes and DADT, so I'll repost part of it here.
"From everything I've read, the main political road block to repealing DADT isn't public opposition or even GOP opposition - it's strong opposition from military and veterans constituencies and those who represent them, like House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton, who supports DADT (see here and here). Obama has pretty consistently answered questions about repealing DADT by saying he wants to "consult and work with our generals" before making any decisions on repealing the policy, which doesn't make me optimistic - if we need a majority or plurality of military leadership publicly to support a repeal of DADT before it happens, then I look forward to the passage of the Military Fairness and Readiness Act of 2042.
To be fair: I do think the hate crimes bill could be passed in his first term. It's a priority for Congressional leadership, has broad public support, has passed Congress once before and will come up in a substantially more Democratic (and slightly more progressive) Congress. But to me, acting on the hate crimes bill is not the strongest of leadership, because any Democratic president could likely get it done without too much difficulty."
On ENDA: I believe the intra-Democratic fight over whether to include protections for transgendered Americans will be, as the saying goes, too much drama for no-drama Obama. That drama killed momentum on the bill in the last Congress and I would bet will be exaggerated with a greater Democratic majority in this Congress. Additionally, the serious threat that ENDA could actually become law (whereas last Congress it was mainly symbolic) will bring greater media and public scrutiny that will turn up the right-wing noise machine, and the argument won't be "gays are immoral;" it will be "do we really want to make it easier for San Francisco homosexuals to sue small businesses in this time of financial crisis and recession?"
On civil unions: won't happen, and on this one I really don't blame Obama (unless he was a bold, FDR/LBJ type president, and he was pretty clear in the election he wasn't running as that type of president). We haven't had practice runs at civil unions legislation at the Congressional level to see how this plays out, so I don't have much evidence on this, but I think it's fair to say this is the hardest issue of the four to pass, and I've already laid out why I think two others won't pass with Obama as president.
My point on "priorities" isn't that its the same as health care, energy or the economy. It's that as president, you only get a handful of issues where you can use your capitol to push hard issues with strong opposition and close votes. I believe that opposition from constituencies against GLBT legislation is non-negotiable, and (as I mentioned, hate crimes aside), ENDA, repealing DADT and civil unions legislation will be big, angry, divisive fights, because people like Rick Warren will make them like that.
I've taken Obama at his word about a conciliatory, non-confrontational, centrist presidency where you have a really big chunk of Republicans voting for your legislation. He will have close votes, but my gut feeling is that GLBT issues won't be among them. That's why I'm just not sure there is much evidence to suggest "they will get done" when Obama is president.
Andrew & DB Cooper:
Evangelicals are going to start voting for Obama(or Democrats)? Really? Do you really think Warren is open to changing his mind? Do you ever read his statements? Warren is an unrepentant bigot and homophobe. Hell, he has called for the assassination of foreign leaders. I am curious. What behavior would disqualify someone from Obama's "Big Tent"? Why not invite David Duke? How is Rick Warren, given all the things he's said, much different from David Duke?
On civil unions: won't happen, and on this one I really don't blame Obama (unless he was a bold, FDR/LBJ type president, and he was pretty clear in the election he wasn't running as that type of president).
FDR didn't run on taking bold actions. The times required the bold actions and FDR stepped up to the plate after he was elected.
Joe Klein's conscious
I am curious of what you make of Obama's approval ratings thus far? Could it be that some of the 65+ percent of Americans who think Obama is doing a good job so far are evangelicals? Also what do you make of leaders of the Catholic faith coming out and saying it was ok to vote for Barack Obama and that you wouldn't go to hell or have to go to confession afterward for doing so? Is that anything like compromise? What do you make of Joe Lowery? Do you think he was ALWAYS for gay rights? Do you think he NEVER preached against homosexuality?
That we assign evangelicals this rigid hive mind that can never be changed is just like wingnuts labeling us as lefty loonies who can never protect this country because we don't love it. Its all bullsh!t and people need to stop it. Black folks could have said they were never going to change white people's minds on segregation but they didn't and now we don't have it anymore. Women could have said they weren't going to change men's minds on womens suffrage, but they didn't and now they have a better semblance of equal rights. Gay people could have said they would never convince straight folks to protect their rights to be hired for a job and not be discriminated against. But they didn't and now they have at least some protections against discriminations. None of those folks took their ball and went home. None of them just decided the other side was unreachable.
For all of those saying that Obama shouldn't reach out to evangelicals I am calling BULLSHIT. You don't change minds or progress in this world without reaching out. If you don't realize that its probably because you never had to fight for anything in your life. Well NEWSFLASH change doesn't just happen and its never just handed to you. Its something that you have to fight for and some of that fighting involves outreach. PERIOD.
Thanks. It is indeed a short trek from symbol to policy. This morning, I forced myself to watch ABC's This Week because Joe Biden was on. He parroted the argument that the Rick Warren aggrandizement wasn't important because Warren wasn't a policymaker. In the next segment, know-it-all George Will didn't see what all the fuss was about: "What do you expect? After all, Obama went on Warren's show & said he opposed gay marriage." While Warren's opposition is based on his likening gays to pedophiles and Obama's (probably) on political expediency, the effect is the same: if ye be know the love that dare not speak its name, ye may not marry that love.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
@sgwhiteinfla
"If you don't realize that its probably because you never had to fight for anything in your life"
I don't know. I thought that the gay community was fighting for something as we speak. Also, reaching out to the evangelical community is great. Convincing people and all that. Sure. Warren, on the other hand, is one of the leaders of the gay bigotry in this country. He won't change one bit on that regard just because he pals around with Obama. And that is not what Obama wants to get out of him, trust me. BO is not a fool of that category. Maybe, just maybe BO can get something out of reaching out to him --he definitively thinks he will-- and this may even good for some progressive policies but this will not advance gay rights one iota.
We gays and our allies will have to DEFEAT people like Warren by making our case to people that can be convinced. The stuff of politics and government is complicated and, as TheF79 said sometimes someone needs to be pawned. But let's be clear on this: the success of the presidency of Barack Obama, his political future and that of the Democratic Party and its other constituencies are positively co-related with the struggles of we gays but ARE NOT THE SAME THING. We gays knows that very well --what is it that the only congressman that has objected to Warren is Barney Frank?-- but the other members of the coalitions better understand that too and at least try to understand that we gays can't and will not just contemplate how we are pawned without at least let it know that we don't like it.
Also, to reiterate my previous question: Do you agree to reconvene on Jun 2010 to see how fiercely has Barack leaded the fight for gay rights?
RMG,
I don't agree with your analysis on the big ticket LGBT issue legislation. As I mentioned above, I think three of the items will be slam dunks. To be sure I expect some fretting and fussing over them, and the final versions of ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation will probably include some reassuring language for rightwing religious groups so they can comfort themselves that they will not be jailed for "preaching the Bible" and will not be forced ro hire a gay choir director or whatever. Also, ENDA will probably exclude transgendered people from its language (I don't think that's right but I do think it's likely.) As for DADT, public opinion has turned soldily in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even many Republicans no longer oppose that. The homophobic right will probably whine, but it won't have the support it would need to block such a change. As for the military, that will depend crucially on how good their relationship is with Obama. If they feel they are getting shafted in general, they will put up a fight, if only to embarrass him. But if they feel their concerns and wishes are getting a respectful hearing (in all matters) I don't think they will do much more than utter some pro-forma and not very strident objections and then let it go.
I do agree that the DOMA is unlikely to changed any time soon. Some nibbling around the edges maybe with things like healthcare (where equal treatment for gay partnerships can be rolled into and obscured by much larger reforms), maybe some symbolic gestures (e.g., the Obamas attend a same sex wedding) and that will be about it.
The reason that Barney Frank is the only congressman to condemn having Warren speak is because most of America doesn't think it is a big deal and think the reaction among certain parts of the gay community is way over-the-top.
There are times when the Far Left seems as bad as the Far Right. The Far Left hates the Far Right just as much as the Far Right hates the Far Left. These two sides keep each other in business.
Sorry, but when people say they need to DEFEAT Warren they just show why they don't get it. You simply don't convince people with that kind of slash and burn politics, you just don't.
The gay community needs to learn from the Prop 8 debacle - it's no longer about what's right, it's about convincing 51% of the population to vote for what's right.
The antics of Mayor Newsom gave the Far Right the ammo to pass Prop 8. And the over-the-top outrage over Warren speaking - in a prayer when gay rights won't even be the topic! - is not helping things. Instead, it is telling moderate Americans who might be sympathetic to gay civil rights that their demands are unreasonable.
Shouting that Rick Warren is a bigot is fine. And deserved. But trying to shame Obama to disinvite the man borders on fascist dementia.
The goal needs to be to heal these rifts, not pour more gasoline on the fire.
I never expected Obama or Democrats to do anything for us gays, and I still don't. My message to him and those who agree with this choice: We'll fight our own battles, thanks. But that being the case, just leave us alone and don't go out of your way to insult us or rub salt into the recent wounds, and don't use us to make yourselves feel all progressive and liberal, giving lip-service to gays one day, but telling us to take a hike the next day when the rubber hits the road. And don't pretend to support us; don't bother making promises or use shallow rhetoric about being 'fierce'. 'Fierce' is standing up against the majority, not the minority. 'Fierce' is inviting Warren to another public debate and dialogue session, 'fierce' is condemning his homophobic statements while praising his humane ones, not giving him an honored position at the dais. In short, just let us gays go. And while you're at it, why not invite a Holocaust denier to speak at the Inauguration, since it's so important to include the views of those who disagree with you? I'm certain there's some demographic somewhere who would be pleased by this choice, since principle no longer matters, just our new religion, pragmatism, or inclusivity, or whatever it is.
Anyhow, Obama's not an idiot and must have had an idea of how this would play out in the media(which, with a few exceptions, fail to point out Warren's comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia; in my book this is the clincher, the horrible thing the Warren doesn't even bother to rescind or apologize for) and for gays in general. So, with this gay equivalent of the Sista Souljah moment we are getting tagged with the same call of 'hysteria' that most minority groups have had when they don't appreciate getting insulted. 'Dumb, impractical gays shut up already' is the message I'm getting here. But it's all good. The thing is, I bless every day the fact that God implanted me with 'the gay'. Because we gays learn early on to read signals that others don't see, we often have a gift of discernment. I voted for Obama but I don't kid myself. Wiretapping, torture; when it comes down to it, we can be practical about all kinds of things, can't we? As long as the economy is good.
rockthebells,
How do we "heal these rifts"? This common ground that Obama speaks about...where is it?
Warren says gay relationships are like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. What's the common ground?
Should gays say, "Yeah, you know, we're like pedophiles, but nothing like incest or polygamy." Or, "Let's agree that we're like incestuous folks, but not pedophiles or polygamists." Or, "You know, I just can't stop adding people to my household, racking up so many spouses I could join a FLDS compound, except for the fact that I suffer from teh gay."
Really, what is the common ground? And WE'RE the ones that are over the top? Seriously: "Nigga please!"
kris, Obama using the word 'fierce' is quite ironic, too. He has no window into gay culture to even know how the use of that expression would sound to us. But, we already know that by the pick of Warren. Not to essentialize (too much), but gay culture has always been wrapped up with literature, film, theater, liturgy (even!), and pageantry. (The Wizard of Oz is totally queer, as is Peppermint Patty.) To not foresee that Warren's presence at such a thickly symbolic and historic ritual would be offensive is proof that Obama is not 'fierce,' but tone deaf.
RMG, thanks for helping me give shape to what have been my inchoate, gut feelings for quite some time now. When Obama was asked, after a statement by General Pace, if homosexuals were immoral, and he couldn't answer the question...it started then. Donnie McClurkin was next. Now we're on repeat.
And all this machiavellian theorizing about Obama? What, now that Karl Rove isn't playing, we're supposed to think that Obama has some grand scheme at work here to advance civil and human rights for minorities? He's boilerplate Democrat with excellent rhetoric. For a time, as a result, triangulation just won't seem like triangulation. It will come with a fancy ribbon. And we'll 'read' that box like we did Oz, and know it's pretty much empty for us.
So let's march on Washington again.
I say you are over-the-top, Jimmy, because of reactions like the one in your post above. Should gays say this and should gays say that? That is the kind of over-the-top stuff I'm talking about.
No one says you have to agree with what Rick Warren says. Or even like it. So stop pretending like that's what's being asked of you. Because your hyperbole just makes you look like a hysteric, and again, makes you looks unreasonable, and the more unreasonable you look, the more you're never going to win over the middle.
If the gay community is happy to live with civil marriages in some states, and gay marriage only in a few, keep up the hysterics. Keep acting like Rick Warren giving a prayer that has nothing bad to say about gay people is a second holocaust. Keep comparing Warren to Nazis. Because that kind of over-the-top stuff is just gonna turn the middle against you.
California voted against gay marriage. If that's gonna happen in California, it's gonna happen everywhere else.
Does anyone realize that the only way to win equality in California is to win over the middle? Is this unclear to everybody?
Let's hope that Jerry Brown can get the thing overturned.
But if not, someone is going to have to act like a grownup and try to win over the middle. Because out there in the middle, they see Mayor Newsom on one side and Rick Warren on the other. And like it or not, in the eyes of the middle, Warren is the moderate of that group. I'm not saying he's a moderate, he's not. But it's about perception. And to the middle in America, you put Warren next to Newsom, and Warren looks pretty damn good. Like it or not, that's the reality.
Until the gay community can learn that hysterics just scares otherwise sympathetic people away, and until they can find a way to be reasonable in the face of what most Americans believe is a perfectly legitimate religious difference, nothing is going to change.
Melissa Ethridge sharing a stage with Rick Warren last night is a beginning. Because the reality is that a lot of America is (ignorantly, yes) afraid of gay people. That's the way it is. And until more of those people who are afraid are educated, not much is going to change.
@rockthebelts,
I am really not interested in starting a discussion with you. What are you going to say to a guy that thinks that Rick Gays-Are-Pedophiles Warren is the moderate and we are extreme because we want equal rights? I don't know. A shrug and a matter-of-factly fuck you, maybe?
For the rest, and for the record. When I say we have to defeat RW I mean we need to gain full civil rights for gays. That's all. It doesn't mean that RW can't have his megachurch and his books and his fame and be pals with Barack The Fierce or anything else. It is defeating him when it comes to gay rights.
Well, I googled the homosexuality is immoral thing and this is what I found:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-obama-and-gays/
Really, go and read it.
Both Clinton and Obama were so fierce that in comparison John Warner the old fart Republican from fucking Virginia looked like Newsom The Radical.
But since many and America agree with General Pace in that homosexuality is immoral I guess I am hysteric and extreme in pointing out that I don't think that neither Clinton nor Obama were too fierce there. And that I might be a little bit skeptic in our President-elect in his commitment to gay rights.
Eduardo, the shrug and the fuck you that you feel so righteous in giving is the very thing that will make gay rights impossible in the country.
The more you tell people to go fuck themselves, the more they believe you are unreasonable and the less they are likely to be sympathetic with the cause.
This is the way things work. Always have.
The Civil Rights Bills in the 60's would have never passed before the middle in America saw the racists turn their hoses on blacks and whites peacefully marching for equality. When the middle saw that, they supported Civil Rights.
But if the gay community thinks they can win the middle while simultaneously telling them to go fuck themselves, they're fools.
For the record, I don't believe Warren is a moderate, but rather that when the middle of the country looks at him next to Newsom, or the over-the-top reaction to Warren giving a simple prayer that has nothing at all to do with gay rights, then he looks moderate to them.
And that is a problem for those of us who believe that all Americans should be equal.
This Warren thing really has shown how a lot of people in the gay community just don't get it. It's clear that if they put all this energy into fighting against Prop 8 that there would have been a good chance it wouldn't have passed. Instead, there was a lack of cohesion and a huge amount of dissembling in the campaign against Prop 8.
Obama isn't your enemy. Neither are people like myself who worked against Prop 8, but aren't going to sit here and watch this ridiculous outrage over a simple prayer and pretend like it's justified. Clearly there is a lack of leadership that has even a clue about how to get where the gay community wants to go.
It's been clear for along time that half of America doesn't understand what gay people are all about, and needs to be educated. And that education - which we can see in the young - will help change minds.
But it's become more clear during this Warren thing that the gay community - or at least the vocal faction on the interwebs - doesn't understand the middle of America at all. And seems to not care. There are only a lot of go fuck yourselves.
But go fuck yourselves aren't going to help get that vote over 50%, in fact it's going to do a lot of harm. And that's a tragedy. Am I wrong to think the gay community needs a leader who can stand up and speak to the middle of America? I guess calling for a spokesman on Coates site just shows how out of touch I am...but you'd think in a year when Prop 8 passed, and Harvey Milk got so much press and might very well win an Oscar, there would be more real leadership out there that could channel the anger and rage and turn it into something that would help the cause...
@rockthebells
You know very little about the civil rights fight. Do you really think that everything was roses on the side of equality? You've got to be kidding me. You've got to start by reading our very own Dr MLK Jr. Not to talk about Malcom X.
And Harvey Milk? I mean, did you watch the movie? Did you watch the many times he took in the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment of ... San Francisco. How angry he was sometimes and how well, fierce, he was?
Obama is not my enemy. I worked for him, I donated to his campaign, I talked many times over to many people at work and in the Cuban community --not liberal at all-- and I support him. For many, many, many reasons beyond gay issues. You see, being gay is only part of who I am.
But I don't have to glorify him and just shut up when I don't like something he does. I felt hurt by his choice but really even more bothered by his answer in the press conference. I found the "fierce" thing really self-servicing and actually funny. That's what we do in America with our leaders.
But I am actually angrier at the people that just want us to "behave" to not being inconvenient, to just be nice and wait to be accepted. What do you guys really know?
And one more thing, when TNC asks for a spokesman for gay people, maybe we can appoint you, since you know all the answers and find the community so lacking in leadership.
Eduardo, every time you put a word like "behave" in quotes, when no one ever told you to behave, you expose how your anger has turned you unreasonable. And this anger over Warren giving a simple prayer is unreasonable to most Americans. And "most Americans" are the people the gay community needs to achieve equal marriage rights.
Now, Eduardo might not like "most Americans" and would rather give them a "shrug and a matter of factly fuck you". But those of us who agree with Eduardo on the substance of gay civil rights but disagree with him on the how to get there think that his "fuck you" is the very thing that is holding gay rights back.
That "fuck you" is what Mayor Newsom gave to the voters of California, and it came back to haunt every gay American when Prop 8 failed, in great part do to Newsom's soundbites.
Those is the facts. The people you hate are the people you need to get what you want. Keep hating, and they will keep hating you back. But if they are engaged, there is hope. Without engagement, things will never change.
sgwhiteinfla: You're right; while I didn't mean to imply that FDR governed the same way he campaigned, I see your point that Obama could potentially have a presidency radically different that the one he promised in the campaign.
JonF: I hope you you are right that ENDA and a repeal of DADT are "slam dunks."
To both of your comments, I would just direct you to the evidence I cited above and say we will see. Again: I believe President Obama will do some great things over the next eight years, but I don't believe moving the ball forward on GLBT issues in any bold and/or substantive way will be among his accomplishments.