A Response to Melissa Etheridge

When I first read Melissa Etheridge's post about the selection of Rick Warren for Obama's inauguration, I agreed with her. After all, opposing sides can only find peace and compromise if they are able to be reasonable, engage in discourse and show some level of tolerance. Right? Warren has expressed regret for his comments equating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest. He has stated that he harbors no ill will to the gay community and that "every loving relationship should have equal protection." This sounds reasonable to me. So, maybe Ms. Etheridge is right. Maybe we should support his speaking at the inauguration. Why not open our arms and welcome him?

Why not?

Simple.

Melissa Etheridge is dead wrong.

Yes, Rick Warren presents himself as a reasonable, thoughtful and even mostly accepting man. That's precisely the problem. If he were a fire-breathing proselytizer he would be easy to dismiss. But in his "open arms and open heart" approach, he appears to be someone with whom it's possible to reason and perhaps, one day, even find middle ground.

He's not.

Now, I haven't met Rick Warren, but I did have an experience that illustrates precisely why in the continuing struggle to secure rights on the marriage front for all Americans we should not confuse civil engagement with becoming pals.

To set some context, I'm a newly hatched political activist. I've always been politically aware and educated but never really engaged. This year's political cycle changed that, but the change happened late. On election night as I watched the returns, I struggled between incredible elation over Obama's victory and the shattering disappointment of loss on Proposition 8. I went to bed depressed and awakened with a strange surge of resolve. It was time to get involved. So I did.

Fast forward to January 3, 2009 and the inaugural edition of EqualityCamp -- the first major off-line effort to join the digital denizens of the marriage equality movement with their carbon-based world counterparts. My co-organizers and I spent considerable effort crafting the outreach for this event. We were determined to go beyond the "usual suspects" from the gay community and gather people from many walks of life, gay and straight, married and single, from the technologically adept to the digitally challenged.

We succeeded.

We also got some unexpected visitors -- The Rev. Chauncey Killens and two of his colleagues from the Soul Church of God and Christ in Prunedale, CA. Their ministry has committed to show up at all public events related to overturning Proposition 8 within a three-hour drive.

Killens and his associates came into the room, looked around and walked out, but one of my co-organizers, Tara Hunt, sprinted out the door after them (in heels no less), and they agreed to come back in and talk.

And talk we did.

For about an hour a rotating group of people gathered around the six-foot-plus, lanky preacher and engaged in what was, at times, slightly heated debate. Throughout it all, everyone remained polite, civil and friendly. But when it came to the point about allowing two, consenting adults who happened to be of the same sex to have the same rights to marry as two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it was as though we were speaking two entirely different languages. There was zero wiggle room.

The rest of the conversation went pretty much as you might expect. We spoke in circles. The EqualityCampers trying to explain that we're not talking about invading church doctrine, we're talking about giving the same privileges and protections to all consenting adults who want to marry -- regardless of sexual preference. The Reverend insisting that marriage is something already defined by God and that to allow same-sex marriage will be to open the door to allow incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

Yet we continued to talk, eat lunch and even offered our guests some wedding cake that one of the attendees had brought from her recent nuptials. (I was quick to inform The Reverend that he didn't need to worry, the cake was from a straight wedding.)

Finally, they left and after several rounds of chats with others in the room, I found myself thinking about what Melissa Etheridge had said about Rick Warren. And my blood began to boil.

It's not that Warren doesn't seem charming. It's not that he's necessarily even a bad person. It's that in accepting him the way she did, she is giving an implicit buy-in to his not-always-well-camouflaged bigotry. And by putting him at the lectern for the inauguration Obama does the same.

The point here isn't that we shouldn't talk. We should. And while it may seem that I hold them in disdain based on some verbiage choice in this commentary, the truth is I do appreciate that people like Warren and Killens are proactively stepping forward. I do appreciate they are willing to at least talk in a civilized fashion rather than demonizing the gay community or condemning us from their pulpits. And I am willing to engage in those discussions, as frustrating and fruitless as they may seem.

But that is a wholly separate issue from having someone like Warren highlighted during one of the most important events that takes place in this nation -- the swearing in of our leader.

Comments

[JohnBisceglia]

I'm tired of appealing to the abuser. I heard Melissa say on Randi Rhodes in reference to those who believe a marriage is between a man and a woman..............."Does it make you a bad person? - No."

WHAT?! If you CONSIDERED the REPERCUSSIONS of Marriage Inequality you'd see EVIL. HATE. SUFFERING. PAIN. Consequences.

Steamboater on HuffPost shared this brief, tragic story in a comment:

"Try moving to the south like I did. Your lover dies after you've been together for 24 years and the two kids he had adopted 6 years prior to his death are taken away from you by DCS the day after he dies and you have no rights because you had no marriage rights and no lawyer will handle the case because "no judge will hear it"."

GOOGLE - Detective Laurel Hester & Stacie Andree,Lois Marrero & Mickie,
Tim Coco & "Junior" Oliveira ............

There isn't an "unseen corporation" behind these horrors - IT IS THE GOVERNMENT, allowing itself to be USED by the Religious Tyrannists.

Rick Warren is a BAD person because his world view believes in the subjugation of others in the voting booth. ..........although WHY are we "voting" on human rights anyway????

[ClintonAppointee]

I was one of the dozen first -ever openly gay White House staff members to take up work on Inauguration Day when President Clinton took office. Were there compromises and disappointments during his Adminsitration? Of course, and for complex reasons as time went on and as government for the first time constructively engaged such issues such as gays serving in the armed forces. But there was no disappointment arrising from the prominent first item on the program of the first official activity on his first day in office, with all the profile and prominence accruing from it -- nor in the credibility of President Clinton's support for the rights of gay Americans as he was being sworn in.

The kick in the teeth to gay Americans comes from Obama's foreknowledge that Warren's association with Prop 8 would deeply insult and offend gay Americans, and his comfort with the calculation that gay Americans are acceptable collateral damage on his first day in office.

Obama's callous act will embolden and encourage those who will continue to hijack religion, media, and the law in order to deny the fundamental rights of gay Americans.

That is not change we can believe in: it's a sell-out we should be ashamed of.

[Basilk]

Did anyone catch the latest article in the Daily Beast about Rick Warren's shenanigans in Africa? Here is the Web link:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/

[cathybrooks]

Thanks for bringing this up, Basilk. Some people had mentioned this point to me the other day and I'd been looking for some more information on it.

[Lucy0808]

Having Rick Warren speak at the inauguration event is symbolic and consistent with President-elect Obama's rhetoric. Creating a tolerant forum for accepting people that disagree on some issues but agree on others is a good thing. As the author writes, it is unlikely that Rick Warren will be convinced to back homosexual marriage anytime in the forseeable future. However, great good can come out of many dialogs for getting support for other issues where involving people moves things forward to agreement and action. One of these is to get broader support for affordable and easier access to birth control and other family planning services and support. Reducing the level of abortion in this country may be done by many many ways such as this without reducing the rights to have access to that option.

Having more groups work together for assistance to the poor, elderly, and ill is helpful to our society. These are the concern of the Christian conservative right, too.

[jerry23]

Cathy, I agree with you. I do find it condescending when 'celebrities' seem to be given the mike and authority as direction for the Tribe. This Warren thing has only exposed how deep seated Homo Hated is in the being of this Country and how acceptable the shell game of Religious Freedom has Nuts under every shell. I am offended deeply by this choice and the indifference to it only magnifies my believe that Gay support is very conditional. I still get that feeling that I am still on the Playground as a child being taunted and laughed at when I see the Glean in the eye of the Talking Heads when reporting this fiasco. I voted for Obama and feel that the only Change I will see is being "short changed".

If I could, I would take my Vote back." Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

[cathybrooks]

Hey Jerry23, I appreciate your comments, though I would say that you shouldn't second guess your vote. Would you have preferred McCain in office? I, for one, maintain my pride in our new President and have great faith that while he will no doubt make mistakes (he's human after all) that he will on whole make good decisions.

The decision about Warren for me is as much about the reasons I outlined above as it is that, frankly, there just shouldn't be religious figures at the lectern at all. Last I checked we have a separation of church and state, right? So if there *are* to be religious speakers, they should represent a *true* cross-section of faith. Where's are the Jewish, Muslim or Hindu speakers?

As CigarCityGirl commented below, perhaps this was really a strategic move on the incoming administration's part to further galvanize our country. After all, there was a huge sense of political exhaustion after the election and though the engines are revving again as inauguration approaches, it doesn't have the same high level of intensity. Perhaps this was a move to keep people engaged. It doesn't change my mind about Warren, but it does make one think.

[jerry23]

Cathy

Maybe in time, I will share your sentiment, for now I just don't have confidence that this is tha last gaff where the overview is ignored. I see Obama as a Pop President much like Warren is a Pop Religious figure, both want to appeal to the masses with clear knowledge that some will get tossed aside in the process as long as they remain Popular. Sort of like being Overfed and being undernourished. However,I saw a report on MSNBC today where it was mentioned that 3 controversies have rocked the transition. One was the Blogo matter, the other was Panetta and the other was the Warren Choice. Maybe I should be flattered that Warren faux pas is at least showing up on the Heterosexual Dominated Main Stream Media on Jan 7. as a legitimate discretion and reason for valid discussion.

We vote in an Old one Room school House in semi rural Pennsylvania. I got dressed up to Vote this time. I wore a Pin Stripe Suit (not a sport coat and slacks) with white shirt and tie, I stood out. The women manning the Voting station commented on my appearance. I told them that this was a very special day which was my code for change. I had the impression that I would be seated on the Bus for my choice and not under it. That my perspective has had little if any consideration. After all, to many, perception is Reality.

[JimR]

One thing I definitely do not agree with is that Warren or his beliefs are somehow being "highlighted" by him giving a brief invocation. The only person being highlighted is Obama. Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. That's who the day is about. Oh, and there's a fat guy who will give a short general prayer as part of a larger ceremony that has several events and players, but it is all related to President Barack Obama.

[cathybrooks]

You make a good point JimR. It's not necessarily about what he will say while at the lectern on January 20 that is worrisome about Warren's participation, because I'm pretty sure that he will be on his best behavior and probably even do a great job. That's not the point in my opinion. Think of it this way, when you encounter someone who behaves badly and you do nothing, in your silence you implicitly give credibility to their behavior.

BizarroCub made an excellent point in their comment below that perhaps the selection of Warren will turn out to be a good thing in that the topic of marriage equality has been thrust to the national (and even international) stage in a way that perhaps might not have happened had Warren not been selected.

Food for thought, no doubt.

[texanna]

Your article highlights why this fight for equality is fruitless in its current context. Why doesn't the LGBT community focus on something that's winnable -- like changing the government description of the union of two, consenting adults from the term "marriage" to the term "civil unions". Marriage is a religious rite and it is more than pointless to try to change a believer's beliefs. The government is only interested in the civil issues surrounding the union, not the religious aspect of that union. Sure the word "marriage" seems to be endemic at all levels of our government, but I guarantee you it will be easier to root out the word "marriage" and change it to "civil union" than it will be to try and change religious beliefs.

[cathybrooks]

You know, Texanna, you may have something there. After all, as I replied to another comment below, there are two distinct parts of people saying "I do" - there's the legal, civil side and then there's the religious side. One has nothing to do with the other. And since it's the religious organizations all up in a tizzy about how gay marriage is an affront to them ...

[CIgarCityGirl]

Catholics married by a Judge and not married by a Priest are NOT considered married in the eyes of the Church (I am one of them!). I could get a divorce and marry in the Church as a single, never before married person. The church would not have to recognize my civil divorce, because it never recognized my civil marriage.

However, according to the state, I AM married.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your suggestion. Change the term to "civil union" when a church is not involved, and call it "marriage" when the ceremony is conducted by clergy. The government is not concerned with the sacred vow of two spirits joining as one in a holy ceremony...it is only concerned about the community property rights, contractual obligations and rights of inheritance between two citizens.

[CIgarCityGirl]

I have a sneaky suspicion that Obama wants EVERY American tuned in on Inauguration Day. (Personally, I found better things to do than watch Bush get sworn in! I did not feel I was part of the "celebration.")

Having Warren present the Invocation will invite many conservatives to tune in and become a part of history. They may came to watch "their" man, but they will stay to watch "OUR" man! I do believe he has something to say to ALL OF US!

[cathybrooks]

I hope you're right!

[TheHandyman]

If con men were evil, foul mouthed pervs then no one would ever loose a dime. what makes them so successful is that they are so affable, friendly, and slick. That is what Warren is and that is why he is dangerous. The question is, did he con Obama or are they both con men?

[Coinyer101]

thank you for a great post. many of our fellow Obama supporters dont get it. but, there is nothing anyone can do ,now. too many sheeples think Barack can't make a mistake. well, this was a mistake, plain and simple. warren will never change his views, and he has a great big stage to state that on. i, for one, dont like the idea of any religions infesting our politics.

[BizarroCub]

The thing people miss about the Warren choice and that I believe was part of Obama's plan is that...

Chosing Warren has forced a national dialogue in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

We're actually as a nation discussing if peoples attitudes towards gays is bigotry. People who never would have thought it was are now forced to ask themselves if they're bigots. This discussion has been thrust upon the national stage and now every anti-gay bigot pastor on the national scene is now forced to scramble to not only say GOOD things about gay people, they're forced to do things like take down their anti-gay websites and the language on them, actually PERFORM gay outreach, and in the broader sense, Obama's decision has changed the nature of the the debate and framed it nationally in a manner that is NOT in the favor of the anti-gay movement.

And thus why, while I wouldn't have chosen Warren, I'm forced again to be reminded that the move was not only brilliant strategically, but that once again Obama proves he's smarter than the histronic left and I say this as about as much of a gay lefty socialist as you can get.

[Petey131]

Psssst, Cathy Brooks the economy is falling apart! Let's discuss how Bush caused this problem.



A gay American-Latino male.

P.S. I support Mr. Obama 100%

[CateSevilla]

Very well said, Cathy.

You're right - Melissa's post doesn't seem all that bad at first. But when you stop to think about it, I don't want that guy speaking at Obama's inauguration! There are some things that you just can't "nice" your way out of. Equating being gay with pedophilia and spreading hate is one of them.

I completely agree that yes, the LGBT community does need to speak and open up conversation with people like Warren and Killens when they come forward - but that doesn't mean people like Warren need to be speaking at presidential inaugurations.

Hope to see more posts from you here!

[swiss-ski]

Your boy Obama invited him! Melissa is meaningless.

[cathybrooks]

I wouldn't say she's meaningless, swiss-ski, especially in the American culture of celebrity. You need go no further than your nearest magazine rack, book shelf, or even skate around the Web a bit to see the infatuation that our country has with those whose fame puts them somehow in a position of authority.

You do raise a good point, Obama is the one who invited Warren, not Etheridge and there are probably any number of reasons why - several of them stated quite well throughout the comments here.

[PeterY]

Obama is supposed to be about change and the future. The "conservative" position on social issues by definition is not about change, and never has been. We all know which way this is going to go with the next decade or two. Why invite someone like Warren who is living in the past?

[swiss-ski]

Your reply indicated you too live in the past!

[tsparks]

Cathy, you have a well written and thoughtful response to Melissa Etheridge. I must agree that I would never endorse Rick Warren for this role at the inauguration.

In defense of the choice however, I believe this makes Obama a "bigger" person than Warren, Obama is not being exclusive or discriminatory, he is showing he can work with every kind of person, maybe the bigot should reexamine his conscience, if he has one. I suspect he has a hole in his conscience.

Of course bigots seldom change with out some dramatic event, maybe standing next to Obama that day will have a profound effect on the minister.

[cathybrooks]

I would like to think that the experience of being selected by Obama and then, as you say, standing next to him will have such an effect. But sadly I think that the kind of change about which you speak above generally comes from dramatic events of the negative nature. I'm not sure why, but for some reason most people tend to only learn the really big, important lessons when they have to go through pain to do it.

My take is that Warren not only won't be changed by this event, it may even serve to strengthen the resolve he has.

I would not mind being proven wrong.