Time Mag Columnist: Obama Is "Very Rational-Sounding Sort Of Bigot"

In a Time magazine column, John Cloud writes that gay people should not be surprised that Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration:

About three years ago, a reporter at Fortune asked Rick Warren, the successful pastor whom the President-elect has asked to pray at his Inauguration, about homosexuality. "I'm no homophobic guy," Warren said. His proof? He has dined with gays; he has a church "full of people who are caring for gays who are dying of AIDS"; he believes that "in the hierarchy of evil ... homosexuality is not the worst sin." So gays get to eat -- sometimes even with Rick Warren! Then they get to die of AIDS -- possibly under the care of Rick Warren's congregants. And when they go to hell, they won't be quite as far down in Satan's pit as other evildoers.

...

Rick Warren may occasionally sound more open-minded than Jerry Falwell, another plump Evangelical who once played a prominent role in U.S. politics. But he's not. Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

Congressman Barney Frank and the president of Human Rights Campaign are among the many prominent gay Americans who have condemned the choice. Read Obama's talking points on Warren here.

Comments

[Sioen]

Good column, and right on the head.

The problem with bigotry is if it is allowed to stand unchallenged, it leads to discrimination and violence.

Gay people are still killed in America just for existing. That blood is on Obama's hands, too, until he publicly says that gays ARE full human beings, and we ARE entitled to full human rights.

Warren needs to do the same. And then he is welcome to sit down at the table with us.

Our world is too small for anyone to go around claiming one group or another is less than human, as Warren has.

[woodcut]

Bush = stubborn, rigid, refused to admit he made a mistake.
Obama = ditto.
Disagree & you're called a "gay extremist".

H. CLINTON in 2012. She wouldn't have invited Warren.

[Alex02139]

We are stuck with Obama. The Warren invitation shows that he could care less about gay rights, but he is better than most Republicans.

[cyan05]

In response to those who were claiming that civil unions and gay marriage were identical in all but name, the following pamphlet outlines the differences:

http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf

(This isn't to undermine the significance of the name, but rather to show that there are substantial differences between the types of rights that civil unions and marriages entail.)

[nativesun]

John Cloud = Irrelevant Pundit calling the President-Elect names.

Barack Obama a "bigot"!?!?!? - the stupidest, most a**-backwards thing I've heard all day.

If the gay community really wants to start a war they WON'T win....keep calling Barack Obama a bigot!

I disagree with President Obama on his stance on gay marriage. I also disagree(d) with him on his stance on FISA. But I also understand the religious conditioning that has MILLIONS of americans thinking of homosexuality as a "choice" and "sin" and not as an existential fact. So I can 'take it down a thousand' and realize where people's hearts are when they advocate against "gay marriage" - they confuse the constitutional civil right (and series of rights) with the religious sacrament and ceremony. The sin of conflation. That's why the LGBT advocates need to OUTREACH to these religious communities in rational ways and appeal to this issue as a Human Rights Issue.

But NOOOOOOO...you'd rather spit fire and venom.

Ok fine. let's see how far that will get you?

you start (actually..keep) calling Mr. Barack Obama...Our President.­..Obama...­.......a BIGOT (!?!?!?!) when you know damn, effing well that he ISN'T...and you and your self-righteous indignation will NOT win the battle - you'll only have 40 million black people telling you to f--k off.

[artbcpa]

I thought I must have accidently morphed onto a right wing blog site to hear the visicous platitudes being spewed in these comments. Any hope we have to bring this country together will once again be lost if extremist views are all that are heard from the gay and lesbian community. Thank G-d for Melissa Ethridge, Rick Warren, and Barack Obama.

[bernie12]

civil rights are the heart of the country. not extremist gay views. and actually worth fighting for. what does "bring the country together" look like if some people area denied their rights by the majority?

[trinity29]

i think the poster is in support of equal rights and the criticism is about silencing dissent.

[TurgidCaterwauling]

Assuming Obama were to do what all the various special interests groups want, what exactly would that look like?

[truthglow]

Equal rights does not mean "special" interests. It means civil rights. If Obama doesn't understand that, millions of his supporters (not only the gay community), didn't know him for the person he truly was, BEFORE the election, and will withdraw their support of him now.

[TurgidCaterwauling]

If you wish to redefine part of my question, fine; but you still haven't answered the question.

[Lisa-G]

They didn't redefine your question. They clarified it. The way you asked the question, you are implying that civil rights are special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, we are asking that the rights we have under the constitution be honored. Furthermore, we are not a "special-interest" group. The "agenda" of the gay community is no different than the "agenda" of the straight community. We want to live our life in peace, with all of the privileges and responsibilities that every other tax-paying adult citizen enjoys. Stop asking ridiculously loaded questions and you may get some insight.

[rini]

Part of Obama's stance is political calculation.

Obama is idealistic. That's why I voted for him. He is also pragmatic. I also voted for him because of this.

Personally, I cannot see picking Warren. Politically, it's not bad move.

I am sure that it is hurtful to gays that he picked Warren. I cannot imagine being treated as a second class citizen and as an atheist, I really cannot be excited about anyone who lets religion, not reality, inform their beliefs. Still, isn't it better that we get to complain about things like this regarding our next president, rather than things like a million dead people, torture and environmental devastation?

[trinity29]

i am not in disagreement with your remarks but just want to add some fodder for thought and discussion. As a fellow atheist, I wonder if you have considered how you "define" reality.

[superstition]

A lot of people rationalized things like having to sit at the back of the bus, too. "At least I get to ride on the bus!" It's always easy to rationalize. It's harder to get up and start working toward progress. If we convince ourselves that we don't need to do anything, that things are progressing, then we absolve ourselves of responsibility. The Warren invitation is a wake-up call.

[Heyoehkah]

As someone that never trusted Obama, I am not surprised he is seeking cover in the middle. He is a pol first and where can the left turn? Obama is nothing more than Bush light. Look at his appointments, if you did not know otherwise you would think we had another Neo-conservative in office.

[trinity29]

he has always been a centrist politician. i don't know why people keep ascribing values of progressive politics on him. on some issues he is progressive but for the most part he is a centrist.

[Alex02139]

he has always been a slippery politician. he was confused for a progressive because that's how he positioned himself to beat Hillary, who unlike him has some spine.

[SteveDenver]

If Warren is interested in a "hierarchy of sins," he discounts Jesus' sacrifice. According to the fairy tale, "all have sinned and fall short," so any sin is enough to separate one from God whether it's an inch or a mile, the verdict is that you go to hell. But because of Jesus, sinners can stand before God.

If you go back to Jewish law and hierarchy of sins, the harshest judgment is reserved those who have been entrusted to teach and who teach wrongly.

In hierarchy of sins, homosexuality is listed alongside eating shellfish and overpaying for a slave.

Want to talk about deadly sins? Let's address gluttony, which is among the 7 deadly sins.

[GoogleMaster]

I'm sure RIck Warren would not condone remarrying after divorce or adultery. That doesn't make him a bigot. The man believes the biblical laws that apply today, ie no more animal sacrifice, no more of the slavery references, no more of the shellfish prohibition. Some restrictions still apply as written in the New Testament and Rick Warren is simply going by the book.

[opilyhonza]

To be fair, the NT never says that slavery should be stopped. Doesn't Paul talk about "slaves being obedient to their masters," in the same breath as "wives being obedient to husbands"? This is why slavery was allowed for so long in this country, because it was based in the bible in the OT and NT. Yes, I'm well aware that many abolitionists were Christian, and that is admirable. Also, Jesus didn't say much, actually not anything, concerning gays. Again, the only person who mentions this is Paul.

I consider myself agnostic and you can believe as you wish, but it seems to me that most people who use the bible to bash gays are picking and choosing what to believe and what not to. I would think that if Jesus thought homosexuality were a big deal, he would have mentioned it.

[trinity29]

going by the "book" is an easy reduction and poor justification for bigotry. The "book" has multiple contradictions and has been historically stated to have multiple interpretive incongruities.

[AlienNationRefugee]

Team Obama seeks to silence the backlash on change.gov:
----------
Commenting disabled
Further commenting on this blog post has been disabled by the blog admin.

[zest]

This first real test of the Obama presidency will be his position and policy on "Don't ask, don't tell". Stay tuned.

[rufus red]

I agree about Obama's first real test.

I am very disappointed in Obama's choice of Warren and also for Vilsack who he is picking for some agricultural position(?), another mistake, anyhow, the Prop 8 result infuriated me, especially since tax exempt churches raised $75 million to get it passed, but the gays in the military issue makes me even more angry! To think there are gay men and women right this very second in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting this bogus war on terror for the freedoms of people that don't grant them the same equal rights under the constitution, yet if they're ever found out, they could be discharged in a heartbeat, is just downright unfair and so absurd!

Please, keep up the pressure and the conversation, it is the only way we can make real change.

[Smith808]

I hope Warren makes such an attempt...so far, he's been exploiting the controversy into more Christian PR with his 22 minute monologue on SB.com.

He has removed some if his anti-gay language from this website, but his reps have said this doesn't indicate a change in its anti-gay (or de-gay) policies.

Aside from having a dinner date with Etheridge, there's been no substantive outreach (a la Obama) coming from Warren's side. Some may argue these "niceties" are a start, but when was the last time you didn't hear a Right Wing Evangelical say he didn't "love you?" He has preferred to engage gays and lesbians in photo ops rather than real "purpose-driven" dialogue.

On Hardball recently, Mike Rogers, a gay activist, initiated this very dialogue, stunning (and embarrassing) his evangelical counterpart for not having first taken up the "Christian" gesture of "bringing people together." It was a brilliant move and a proud moment.

Now is the time for gay groups to get Warren's contact info and settle a time and date not to conflict with Etheridge's dinner plans.

MSNB: Inside the Warren Debate http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28355959#28355959

It's on huffpost now, too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/gay-rights-activist-on-ha_n_153026.html

[trinity29]

i think one of the best possible outcome with the Warren choice is the national discourse against bigotry. I am not a Warren fan and I suspect there was some political leverage in selecting Warren. What I would like to see is that the need to press on Warren for an open dialogue with people who are in support of gay rights (or human rights for that matter) to challenge his positions. This needs to be done with civility so that the dialogues and conversations continue to occur. Without giving people some choices about framing their perspectives, we leave the pastors, evangelicals, and bible thumpers to promote prejudice. On that note, I think as a community that preaches tolerance and inclusion, we should include and engage opposing perspectives beyond harsh criticism and dismissal. Otherwise, we continue to solidify our own positions in our own corners and build barriers and not bridges. I have mixed feelings about the Warren choice but I am excited about this ongoing dialogue of holding O accountable and raising the discourse of equality on a national level and exposing the bigotry of religious zealots.

[MarylandLesbian]

Once again, you are wrong, Civil unions are not legally equivalent to civil marriage. You can repeat your assertion as many times as you wish, but that will not make it true.

Civil unions do not confer all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of civil marriage. Civil unions are not portable from state to state or country to country; they do not confer the more than 1,100 federal benefits, privileges and responsibilities that are associated with civil marriage. Civil unions are a separate, and unequal, legal entity.

Instead of repeating this falsehood, why don't you do some research and learn the truth?

Here: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

and here: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04353r.html are good places to start.

The Supreme Court, in its Loving v. Virginia decision, stated that the right to marry the person one loves is a basic civil right. That places this issue squarely in the civil rights arena.

Marriage has nothing to do with religious belief. If it did, neither atheists nor agnostics would be permitted to participate in that entity.

[trinity29]

who are you arguing with? i agree with your information but don't know who it is directed at.

[eden4barack08]

That's why Obama has vowed to do away with DOMA and make civil unions federal so ALL the same legal rights are recognized.

"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions
that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples. Obama also believes we need
to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal
rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil
unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in
times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

http://oba­ma.3cdn.ne­t/79517495­6a7f432e93­_4iiemv52b­.pdf

[jshubbub]

I think Melissa Etheridge said it best in her blog post here on HuffPo from the other day. It's about hearts and minds. The majority of Americans are never going to support LGBT equality as long as the LGBT community is an "other" to them. Until we start talking and interacting with each other based on our commonalit­ies--until we start viewing each other as humans and stop screaming at each other across the divide--things will never change. And change is what they fear.

There are, of course, exceptions, but most straight Americans don't hate LGBT Americans. They simply don't know any well enough to appreciate their humanity and their struggle for equality. That fact makes it too easy for the average American to objectify LGBT Americans, and what we need to see a move toward personification. If we all start spending real time with each other then the day when we're all equal will come that much faster.

Obama's actions are controversial, and I reacted negatively to them when he first announced Warren's involvement in the inauguration. But I've listened since then to other voices from the LGBT community, and I've come to see things differently. Obama isn't legitimizing Warren's views as much as he is humanizing the debate he represents. By doing so, Obama is pressuring Warren to reevaluate his stand by making him defend and redefine it. It's actually a brilliant strategy when you think about it.

[Merp]

I agree completely and I think it's a genius move.

It also humanizing us and the gay community to the evangelicals. It will make it MUCH easier to work on things. While they might never agree with us on gay rights think of all the other things we will be able to discuss, the environment, the economy, etc. It also takes the stranglehold the right-wing has had on these people for so long.

[Alex02139]

I'm willing to bet that the gay angle of Rick Warren's politics never even occurred to Obama or to his affect specialists. They're thinking 2012. They're thinking if they can peel away 12% of the Evangelocos then the Republicans are in a world of hurt in swing states. They're thinking Ricky Warren cancels out bad memories of Jeremiah Wright. Establishment liberals do not care about gay issues, they never have unless they are forced to. The Harvard club that Obama has assembled thinks all this has been settled, after all there is gay marriage in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so what's the problem? Why are these uppity queers screaming and spoiling a perfectly nice party?

Remember that Stonewall and ACT-UP were not tea parties. Playing nice gets you nowhere in American politics.

[trinity29]

I hope that the ulterior motive for this selection was to "humanize the gay debate." But even if it wasn't (which is where my head is going), I think the facade of lets come to the table together is triggering people to talk about this on a national level and engage dissent with civility. I don't know if O actually intended for it but I am happy that it is one of the better consequences of this action.

[GomezAdams]

I enjoyed the article.