A Generation Ago, Rick Warren Would Have Made Obama Sit at the Back of the Bus

As a human being, and admittedly the kind of human being I am, I feel very offended that Rick Warren should be asked to speak at the inauguration of a president whose very ethos enshrines the qualities of respect and equality.

I admire Barack Obama enormously. On one level I admire his decision to reach out and bring such a divisive figure into his camp. I believe that in order for real progress to be made in a rigidly bipartisan political system like America, it is imperative to make the people we disagree with on some issues feel that we are eager to unite on those on which we agree. The alternative is to make our political foes feel ostracized and left out in the cold, allowing their more extreme opinions to only fester further in resentment and isolation.

Mr. Warren, for a religious leader, is rather progressive when it comes to acknowledging the existence of and engaging with the problems of poverty and AIDS. (Though I could do without his defense to charges of homophobia being that his church has helped people who have contracted the disease through gay sex. Does that mean he is pro-drugs because he has helped people who contracted AIDS through sharing needles? Give me a break.)

But of course he is rigidly anti-abortion (I refuse to say pro-life -- it is another example of America's need to Disney-fy the real world) and his opinions about the LGBT community have been well documented of late.

In many ways Rick Warren is like a lot of people we know -- friends' dads or people we meet on planes that are pleasant but occasionally offer an opinion that gives you a startling glimpse into the darkness of their souls. Comparing same-sex relationships with incest and pedophilia is a case in point.

I am in a same-sex relationship (fully legitimized, incidentally, by the UK government) and so I can understand how my comments here could be perceived as biased, a knee-jerk reaction to my relationship being placed alongside illegal acts, but bear with me.

I, like the majority of Americans, feel that gay people are unfairly discriminated against, and it is time they were afforded equal rights. I have heard the president-elect espouse these same opinions many times, and unlike some friends I have talked to over the last few days, I have no fears that he has altered these opinions in any way or that the invitation to Mr. Warren compromises them and his desire to see them enacted into law.

Obama is very clearly showing his promise to be everyone's president -- from little, lefty queers like me to big, right-wing religious bigots like Rick Warren.

(And he is a bigot. Go look it up in the dictionary.)

But wait! I can see his point about gay marriage! Much as he misled his congregation about Proposition 8 with the fear-mongering notion that ministers would be arrested for not promoting some gay agenda if it passed, he does have a reasonable point that marriage has been defined in a certain way (i.e. not between two dirty queers) for many years (he claims five thousand, but who's counting?), and as we all know as we emerge exhausted from this last election, change is difficult. I see his issue with it. And Mr. Warren does seem to support equality for the gay community in all other ways, so it seems to be merely a semantic issue with the use of the word 'marriage.'

If he, and many other millions of Americans, cannot handle the word 'marriage' in reference to two men or two women, and if that is the only stumbling block to him being able to embrace equality and the end of prejudice against gays, then fine! Fine, Mr Warren, keep your 'marriage!'

I actually think the gay rights movement has shot itself in the foot with the insistence on this word. For me, the most important thing is that I have the same rights and protections as any other human being, whether I wish to enter into a legally recognized relationship or whether I wish to remain single. And as things stand right now, I have neither.

I am not even actually 'married.' I 'entered into a civil partnership.' Of course everyone, even the man who conducted the ceremony, called it 'marriage,' but technically, legally it is a civil partnership -- one incidentally that straight people can enter into, too. So are we to believe that Mr. Warren and his fellow Americans would feel comfortable if the U.S. government followed the U.K. model (where the word 'marriage' was also a small moot point)?

Maybe -- in the spirit of the new United States of Obamica -- the gay community needs to reach out and say that if the end of a civil rights struggle rests around the interpretation of one word, then it is willing to forgo that word and use another, or others.

But why should they? Obama has shown his empathy for gay marriage by pointing out that his parents' marriage was illegal in many states when he was born. (Incidentally he said 12, but it was actually 22, according to Politifact.com). Would he have been fine with saying his parents entered into a civil partnership? Maybe. But would he be fine with hearing that his parents' marriage was akin to a brother marrying his sister or a pedophile marrying a child? I think not.

And that, finally, is what is so upsetting and insulting about the idea that Rick Warren will be standing on the podium on this great day of celebration for a new America: because this whole thing is not about gay rights or policy or differences of opinion. It is about human decency and respect. Let's face it, a generation ago Rick Warren would have made Barack Obama sit at the back of the bus, and now it's the gays who are back there and we feel kind of lonely.

Comments

[Mistlethrush]

Anyone who thinks Rick Warren is a moderate has some homework to do. Why not start here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/31/165531/87

Warren puts up a great front but he is no different than the rest of the right wing religious zealots except that he presents himself as a reasonable man. Take a real look at Warren and the people who are doing their damndest to make sure GLBT citizens are kept apart to be trotted out as the Frightful Other whenever politics demands it.

[kreoth]

b-word
b-word
b-word
b-word

someone should immediately start writing "From Churchill to Cumming: Scenes from the unimaginable history of oppression of gay men in Britain" and show the world the horrifying truth!

[ruthinking]

Alex is absolutely correct. I know, I lived it. As a Mexican-American kid in Texas (and because of circumstances absolutely out of my control), I was forced to attend a "mission" supported by the Baptist church. We were forced to sign pledges that we would NEVER vote for a Catholic, and NEVER marry out of our race. My most bitter memory is being forced to go to a BIlly Graham rally and directed to seat in the "Mexican" section.

[mightbesane]

"In many ways Rick Warren is like a lot of people we know -- friends' dads or people we meet on planes that are pleasant but occasionally offer an opinion that gives you a startling glimpse into the darkness of their souls."

This is where I break with many critics of the choice of Rick Warren. When someone disagrees with our strongly held moral and ethical standards, we see it as 'darkness' of the soul. (By the way, why is evil dark/black and goodness light/white? I've read other commentators who consider that a racist stereotype. Hmm...) Particularly in the author's example that I've cited, more often we're talking about cultural environment and not evil. There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable to tell Polish jokes, Jewish jokes, Uncle Tom jokes, queer jokes. And some of our Dads told them. And they weren't evil people with dark souls to be glimpsed. They were plain folks that didn't know any better than to go along with culturally accepted norms. (And don't bring up Nazi Germany analogies, please. Just don't go there.)

Agreed, the case of Rick Warren is a bit different. But frankly, I think that this author does a better job in the first few paragraphs (why we should just deal with it) than the last (why we should continue the sniping). The main point of the inauguration is that it is Obama who is to be inaugurated. Celebrate, why don't we?

[aishadl]

Thank you! As an African American straight female who supports the gay community I'm quite frankly tired of the gay community feeling Obama is suppose the end of THEIR struggle. This is not about the gay community's moment in history. This is about 400 years of struggle and oppression and segregation and every life that was and still is sacrificed to get to this point. Do the very SELFISH gay community even realize that even today African Americans are being shot down and hunted while they try and leave the 9th ward in New Orleans? Wow, but of course Obama is suppose to be the symbol of inequality's bygone era. Wake up, that's not the case. Get over yourselves. If you can't embrace this moment in time for your own sake then stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us!!!

[Melkor]

What a callous argument to make. This is our moment, wait your turn - is that what you are saying?

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

[sethrp]

This New Orleanian would like you to hush up about subjects you clearly don't know. For one, there aren't but a few people even LIVING in the Lower Ninth Ward (save for a few FEMA trailers and some rebuilt houses). I don't know if you've actually been there, but most of the Lower 9th is still grass fields, which is its own crime. But you implied folks were being "hunted" here, which is downright batty. There was a revelatory article in The Nation about racist vigilantism in the days immediately following Katrina, but that has not persisted. The lion's share of dastardly deeds done in the Big Easy are still drug- and gang-related.

To your larger point, you tell the gay community to "get over ourselves;" to the back of the bus! Then you lament horrors done against African-Americans - as though gay folk aren't treated horribly, as though one group's suffering is any "better" or "worse" than another's, and as though there aren't any queer African-Americans! Gay and lesbian folks have been lynched, castrated, gassed and more for thousands of years by ruling majorities of all stripes - suffering is suffering. But hidden in your muddle is a great point: this moment must be for ALL OF US. GLBT and African-American folks have much common ground to stake! We won't find that common ground if we engage in these "suffering contests."

[kidflash]

True and the GLBT stand poised to mar the inauguration of the first African-American president in US history.

[tublu]

its not their struggle, your struggle, someone else's struggle, its everyone's struggle for everyone to be treated with dignity and respect. black people did not get where they are on their own without the help of nonblack people. how terrible it would have been if people had just said "its a black struggle, get over yourself and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us." how terrrible it was that people *did* say that and that slavery and jim crow existed and ongoing racism does persist. and how awful it is that you are now one of the people perpitrating such hatred, intolerance and inequality.

[singforpeace]

Alan's last comment hits the nail on the head. I am not offended, hurt, devasted, sickened at the thought that the man I so deeply admire (Obama) would invite someone who opposes many of my key sociopolitical beliefs (Warren) it is because as an African American lesbian Warren disavows my very humanity. By equating my relationship (not in one, but that isn't the point) with a pedophile or a perpetrator of incest, or saying that my gayness (he never seems to use the word lesbian) is a deep character flaw that reveals my "immaturity," and believing that I can be "cured" of this malady, Warren has debased who I am as a human being. I think Obama made his decision based on political calculation without even understanding the deeper meaning it has for the people this realates to (me). He assumed that this was about bringing a rival who he differed over on "social issues" into the tent . I am not a social issue (reminds me of the Gee Officer Krupe song--reme­mber--"I'm a zocial (social) disease." I disagree with you over the issue of the word marriage. Federal law regarding marriage brings with it benefits like the ability not to be deported if you are married to an American citizen, federal tax benefits, transferrability of marriage rights between states, etc. Until the law reflects full, and complete equality under any other name--marriage is what we have to fight for.

[goodgravy]

callous insensitivity is the cruelest insult.

[IQ]

Mr Cummings White Gays have always and continue to have the camouflage of Whiteness to escape the daily frontal assaults that African American, Africans in Britain and Africans throughout the diaspora have had to face for hundreds of years. Your struggle is fought when you're ready to fight. That is when you summon up the courage to speak truth to power by professing who you are to the world, or your family, or your neighborhood or your co-workers.

Blacks don't have camouflage Sir. Everyday, Every step is a battle.

Ans when it comes to The Backs of Buses. There were a number of closeted gays and probably a few relatively 'out' White gays that sat in the FRONTS of those buses, that Refused to serve us or didn't want to go to school with my ancestors. So In actuality Mr. Cummings White Gays did their part to maintain Jim Crow by going along to get along and being quiet as church mouses.

So I give you credit. Indeed Rev. Warren probably would have been just as cowardly as Billy Graham when it came to speaking out about the conditions of Blacks in America. But the White Gay movement was not active on the front lines, sit ins...or even in donating resources through back channels.

Your claims ring hollow Sir..
Tell the whole story...Mr. Cummings. Not a one sided narrative that fits your needs

[walleymr]

By Coretta King's on memory, there were white gays fighting side by side in the civil rights movement.

[kutkreata]

Can somebody please name one for us?

[aishadl]

THANK YOU. As a straight AA woman who is wholly involved with gay rights I'm sick of this notion that African American history and struggles are somehow tied to and warrant the furtherance of gay rights as if they are one in the same! They are not. And this commenter is correct. White gays have had the right to discriminate against the black community since the beginning of time. We don't get to wear masks or disguise who or what we are. That is not the same as fighting for legal rights in marriage. Our fight has consisted of more than just legal right to marry who we want!

[sethrp]

IQ, you comment on articles from a combative, African-American perspective, so let me tickle your consciousness bone: gay, lesbian, and transgender folks don't have any fanciful "camouflage." Who carries it? Does Bloomingdale's stock it? Is it seasonal? People with functioning eyes and ears KNOW I'm gay. I can't hide. Even if I could, I would use that camouflage solely to defend my very existence - if my LIFE were in danger! I take severe offense at your argument because it implies my gayness is something that I SHOULD cover up. Even if I could, I wouldn't.

How could you indict gay people for Jim Crow?! Being GLBT was as literal a "crime" on the books as being African-American then, and "sodomy" is often still a crime! Like your other arguments this also assumes there were never any GLBT African-Americans during this time, or ever. To further tweak your consciousness, consider yourself. Is your battle for acceptance and equity as an African-American won the moment you tell people you're black? Of course not. Nor is mine when I tell someone I'm gay. I hope dearly that you never wish you had the OPTION of "blending in," of not having more melanin than some. Because what you're really saying is that I should blend in and live a lie, not a life. In the past we TRIED to disappear; we chose silence. We chose death. Now we choose to fight, for life. Join us.

[faithnj]

I hardly think he implied you "SHOULD" cover up your gayness. I think he was saying you "COULD" cover up your gayness. Nobody is saying you should blend in. But I don't see you saying you can't blend in if your life depends on it. And that's the most important difference between being African American and being Gay. You can deny your are gay if it suits you at any particular time. You can not deny being black.

[harriscrl3]

Its not just Rich Warren that would have made Obama sit at the back of the bus. Its many Gays and Lesbians too.

Carol

[Artemis34]

Carol, You know gays and lesbians come in black, right?

[greendream]

We have no idea if Rick Warren would have made anyone sit on the back of the bus or not considering that his brand of evangelicalism didn't exist until after the 1958 Billy Graham New York City crusade which caused a rift in Christian fundamentalism. Graham had on his platform Christian leaders of other faith traditions such as Catholics and liberal Protestant churches. Some Christians deemed that as unacceptable and broke fellowship with him. They went on to become what is known today as the hard right fundamentalists such as Bob Jones etc. Those who stayed with Graham (while he did not march for civil right he intergrated his crusades long before it was the accepted thing to do) were the forerunners of today's evangelical movement and it took a while for that movement to gain momentum. Believe it or not, Rick Warren follows more in the Graham tradition than that of the hard core fundamentalists. The difference being of course that while their theology is similar I highly doubt Dr. Graham would go around calling people names. Warren wouldn't get the time of day at Bob Jones Uni. I suggest reading Mel White's book 'Religion Gone Bad' for more background on this.

[carter2004]

Mr. Cumming- I'll attribute your not being able to understand what the fuss over the word "marriage" is about to an ignorance of American constitutional law.

"Marriage" is not just a word; it is a fundamental right pursuant to the substantive due process granted to all citizens by our constitution. Legally speaking, this is not even a close question. See our Supreme Court's decisions in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) and Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). There's also a serious 14th Amendment Equal Protection issue with amending a state constitution to discriminate against gay people -- see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). I could cite law to you all day -- but the point is that this "semantic argument" is anything but in our legal system. And the bigots aren't stupid. They know that -- why do you think they are trying to amend all these constitutions left and right? Because if you write discrimination into a constitution, suddenly the Courts can't interpret the constitution in a way inconsistent with that amendment. Ah.

I must confess I don't understand how things work legally in England. But here, we have decades of jurisprudence that speak directly to and underline just how critical this issue -- which you dismiss as "semantic" -- really is.

[JohnBisceglia]

Lives are destroyed EVERY SINGLE DAY while everyone else writes interesting articles, organizes clever rallies and marches, and rant endlessly. Children are hurt. Yet it seems more important to have a "winning argument". Well, I personally have HAD IT, and will encourage anyone who thinks they TRULY deserve better to put your money where your rights SHOULD be, and refuse to acknowledge the I.R.S. on April 15th. I stopped filing in 2005, and NEVER will again until EQUAL.

[CanadianinCleveland]

Right On the mark! Equal rights for all tax-paying citizens... no rights... no taxes....

[LMPE]

I might not feel tempted to reach across the aisle if it meant embracing Rick Warren's ilk.

[rini]

Totally agree, Mr. Cummings.

It comes down to an uniformed scientific belief that sexual orientation is a "choice." Well, our behavior may be chosen. We may choose our partners.

No one chooses who they fall in love with. That's why it's discrimination, plain and simple.

Why can't they get that?

[Artemis34]

Homosexuality is a normal variant that occurs in most, particularly higher, species. This comes with a normal variant in mating.

It must have an evolutionary advantage, or else it would not be so commonly seen. Diversity is strength.

Thank you for your comment Rini.

[QueenOfViolets]

Look, I voted NO on 8 with enthusiasm and pride.

But you didn't make your case that Warren would have supported Jim Crow. You made a claim. It's too serious a claim to be supported merely by analogy.

I understand Warren is upsetting. Obama's getting ready to upset me by hiring the most hard core reefer madness maniac Drug Czar this country has ever seen.

But hey, you claimed Warren would have made Obama sit at the back of the bus, and you didn't supply one drop of backup for this claim.

I support gay marriage, but I don't it's right to call someone a racist merely by analogy.

[JohnBisceglia]

Racist, sexist, heterosexist, whatever - they are all fundamentally the same.

One person sees another as "less than" and inferior to themselves (and often uses a form of social dominance to perpetuate it), and that is evil no matter HOW you slice it.

[goodgravy]

jim crow was rooted in biblical teaching just as the anti marriage equality is. it doesn't take a rocket scientist, only a brief perusal at history, to suggest that rick warren would have put obama at the back of the bus based on his biblical interpretation.

[Jazmo]

Very well thought out. All of us have our positions we are biased for/against, whether due to our own lives or those of family and friends. While I dislike the choice, I understand it and I would sincerely hope that it would give Warren the chance to rethink some positions himself. I agree with Mr. Cummings - whether a "generation" ago or 30 years ago, Warren likely would have put Obama at the back of the bus and likely would have spoken out again the marriage of his parents. We have to hope that Obama is giving Warren the chance to step up a little bit, and change as well. It's not just the general public that needs to accept Warren, but Warren needs to accept the general public. Most importantly, P-E Obama will be overturning alot of Bush's abortion restrictions, so Warren can think what he wants - Obama is on top of that issue. You have to have diversity, you can't just have people who completely share your position, but you do have to hope that those people are learning too.