What Would Obama Do If Obama Was Mad At Obama About Rick Warren?

The question is right there in my title, but I'm going to repeat it: What would Obama do if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren?

Warren is the anti-gay-marriage pastor who Obama picked to lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. People are pissed. People I know. People I respect. People I love.

So recently I've spent a lot of time arguing -- mostly with myself -- about what tactics and strategies make the most sense for the people who feel they've been slapped in the face by the Warren pick.

There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers.

A refresher ...

Which brings us to Lesson One of what Obama would do if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren. He'd move on. He'd refuse to be distracted. He'd brush the dirt off his shoulder and immediately return his focus to winning. Winning, lest we forget, has nothing to do with dictating when and where Rick Warren gets to lead prayers. Winning is about achieving durable equality for gay and lesbian couples who want the law to recognize that their bonds are every bit as legitimate as my bond with my wife.

Victory -- durable, lasting victory -- is the most powerful answer to Warren. Victory is the most powerful answer to a slap in the face from the president-elect.

Meanwhile, if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren, he would be pouring huge energy into trying to solve a mystery: What in the world does the president-elect see in Rick Warren? Obama would buy a copy of The Audacity of Hope and read the long, ruthlessly introspective chapter our next president wrote about faith. In doing so, he'd come to a sentence on page 216: "Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur."

Rick Warren! Right there. In the book. Out in the open. At bookstores all over America. For years. Not hiding. Not tucked away in some footnote.

After picking The Audacity of Hope -- and his own jaw -- off the ground, Obama would flip to the front of the book and confirm the copyright date.

2006.

Long before the first presidential primaries.

Obama would remind himself that this book was a best-seller, that lots of people bought it, that some of those buyers presumably read the book, that some of the people who read it were gays, lesbians, and straight supporters of gay rights. He'd wonder how he and all those other people managed to miss the fact that the President-Elect sees some real good in Rick Warren. He'd demand more of himself next time. He'd vow to do his homework from here on out.

Reading on in The Audacity of Hope, Obama would find these words:

"... no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people -- people who are made in the image of God, and who are often truer to Christ's message than those who condemn them. And I was reminded that it is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in the years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Obama would read those words. He'd read those words again and think about them.

Obama might conclude that those words are damning evidence that our next president is "a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot," as recently alleged in a Time column. If so, Obama might savage the president-elect with all the tactics he picked up during his time as a community organizer. He'd refer to his old copy of Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He might heed the book's call to polarize and personalize, racheting up the rhetoric, ridiculing the president-elect, and attempting to make him and his inauguration the face of anti-gay bigotry in America.

Or instead, Obama might re-read those words in The Audacity of Hope, might think about that phrase "remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided," and might ask himself a shrewd, pragmatic question: Could a president capable of expressing such doubt and self-scrutiny end up being more useful to the marriage-equality movement than a president who reflexively scolds the American people for being a bunch of homophobic jerks?

In answering that question, Obama would need to assess whether acceptance of marriage equality is more likely to come when average Americans get yelled at enough or whether equality is more likely to come as more and more average Americans are calmly made to realize that some of their relatives, their neighbors, their business contacts, their kids' teachers, their sports heroes are gays and lesbians.

Obama would suddenly think of a passage in his old copy of Rules For Radicals, a war story told by Alinsky himself:

"I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 percent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased. Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything, including birth control. I remember discussing it with the then Catholic Chancellor. ... I remember seeing five priests in the waiting room who wanted to see the chancellor, and knowing his contempt for each one of them, I ... opened the door saying, 'Take a look out there. Can you look at them and tell me you oppose birth control?' He cracked up and said, 'That's an unfair argument and you know it,' but the subject and nature of the discussion would have been unthinkable without that solid relationship."

Obama might find himself hoping that our next president is trying to cultivate just that sort of solid relationship with Rick Warren. Still, he'd also consider Frank Rich's caution this morning that our new president "may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are." But Obama would question whether such naivete is really plausible, given another fact detailed in the same Rich column: "There is comparable anger and fear on the right. David Brody, a political correspondent with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was flooded with e-mails from religious conservatives chastising Warren for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. They vilified (the president-elect) as 'pro-death' and worse because of his support for abortion rights."

Obama would welcome the information in Rich's column, remembering another pillar of Rules For Radicals: "The basic requirement for the understanding of the politics of change is to recognize the world as it is. We must work with it on its terms if we are to change it to the kind of world we would like it to be."

Obama wouldn't -- and couldn't -- know immediately what to make of Warren's willingness to stand with our "pro-death" president-elect. He'd puzzle over whether Warren and his congregants show a relative reasonableness that might eventually be cultivated into acceptance of marriage equality or whether Warren is merely the polite, presentable face of intractable bigotry.

There's no answer. Not yet. And maybe not for years.

So Obama wouldn't hope. He'd organize. He'd lead. He might use his side's most potent advantage -- sheer numbers -- by urging gays and lesbians to come out to everyone they know, so that more and more Americans would know the face of a person marginalized by gay-marriage bans. He'd innovate. He'd learn from the ingenuity of the president-elect's winning campaign. He'd re-read Rules For Radicals in its entirety.

Read.

Not skim.

Because how can you even consider skimming a primer on activism that includes a thorough consideration of the merits of feeding baked beans to a group of oppressed people and sending them to the symphony to inflict the stank and cacophony of their baked-bean flatulence on the affluent concert-goers?

Obama, meanwhile, would stay mindful of a central idea in Rules For Radicals: "Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles. ... But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. ... If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead."

Those of us whose sense of justice cries out for marriage equality may need to compromise to achieve it. But we won't need to settle for 30 percent. Nowhere close.

The tide is with us. Unless we get distracted.

We've seen what that's like.

Rick Warren's inaugural prayer is the central front in the struggle for marriage equality in the same way that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the central front in the War on Terror.

Focus.

Huffington Post blogger David Quigg lives in Seattle. Click here to visit the blog where he's gradually posting his entire first novel. Click here for an archive of his previous HuffPost work.

Comments

[kennyinnc]

I'm all for compromise, but I continue to be disappointed by smart people who seem intent on convincing everyone that Obama took this action because he has so much greater foresight and political instincts than the rest of us. The alternative to Rick Warren was not to "scold the American people for being a bunch of homophobic jerks," as this piece suggests. Rather, the alternative was to invite Rick Warren to take part in an AIDS task force, or a presidential commission on poverty. The alternative was to include Rick Warren in the dialogue, without legitimizing the foundation of discrimination against gays and lesbians. The alternative was for Obama to realize that since he really can't deliver anything substantial on gay rights in the foreseeable future, the only thing he can bring about is a change in tone and symbolism. If Obama were pissed at Obama, it would be because he did something really stupid.

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you! Yes, prop Warren up for what he does right, while not rubbing our face in it just a few short months after the most painful episode in LGBT history in 40-some years.

[DVSDVS]

For the record, I'm the author's wife, and I agree with you completely. I'm one of the people he refers to above as someone he loves who disagrees with him vehemently.

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

Before any skeptics jump in and accuse DVSDVS of being some Internet crank who impersonates the wives of obscure bloggers, I just want to confirm that she is who she says she is. And yes, as she writes, she is someone I love who disagrees with me vehemently about the importance of the Warren pick. We both care about all this intensely. My caring right now is taking the form of worrying that we're getting distracted from the REAL goal. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

As background, for those who didn't see it, I tried to explain the depth of my feeling about marriage equality in this recent post ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quigg/save-my-marriage-from-irr_b_151215.html

[southwindow]

This is far better said than I could have said it. The inauguration did not have to be a battleground.

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for reading and commenting, kennyinnc.

Just to clarify, you wrote:

"I continue to be disappointed by smart people who seem intent on convincing everyone that Obama took this action because he has so much greater foresight and political instincts than the rest of us."

I wrote:

"Obama wouldn't -- and couldn't -- know immediately what to make of Warren's willingness to stand with our 'pro-death' president-elect. He'd puzzle over whether Warren and his congregants show a relative reasonableness that might eventually be cultivated into acceptance of marriage equality or whether Warren is merely the polite, presentable face of intractable bigotry.

"There's no answer. Not yet. And maybe not for years.

"So Obama wouldn't hope. He'd organize."

So, kennyinnc, I'm not sure if I'm one of those people who's disappointing you by ascribing preternatural powers of foresight to Obama. If so, I want to specifically make clear that we CANNOT bank on Obama's foresight. We can't know how things will play out with Warren and, more importantly, with his many parishioners. Not for YEARS. I apologize if my writing was at all confusing on that point.

[TRYKER]

What better way for Obama to put the spotlight on Warren and his misguided and misinformed policies than to give him this "honor"? He could have left him in the shadows and gliding under the radar of public opinion and no dialogue would have begun concerning equal rights for gays. This way it is up front and center...gays couldn't have asked for a more polarizing figure to be exposed and put on the spot for national discussion.
Obama knows there is more than one way to skin a cat...and by putting Warren in the spotlight for the next 22 days, Warren has to defend and explain and possibly learn that his way is outworn and interferes with the civil rights of gays. We wouldn't be having this national discussion if he had chosen some oh so acceptable prayer-giver.

[SiberianRat]

Yep!

[LiteSleeper]

But the conversation hasn't been about Warren and his views. It's been between people who are for anything Obama says telling people like me to get over this disrespectful slight. Whining about how we don't understand the "new politics" and giving sanctimonius advice about how we should be conducting ourselves. That's not a debate over substance. If there is no inter-cultural debate taking place, then what exactly did this accomplish?

[JimR]

Again, Obama and Warren have found common ground on certain issues, including combating poverty, AIDS and illiteracy. Obama still supports gay rights, but you need to look beyond that issue on this one.

I am not telling you what to do. Criticize, don't criticize. Protest, don't protest. But I would appreciate it if you would not tell me what to do, either.

[ciociosan]

It sounds to me as if you think anyone who disagrees with you is sanctimonious and "for anything Obama says" (implying support without thought). Can you please consider that there are people who are deeply committed to ensuring equal rights for gays, including gay marriage, who have given this issue considerable thought, but who do not believe that inviting Rick Warren to the inauguration was either an insult or a mistake?

[Democrab]

iI don't understand the problem, I guess. Any religious figure that leads the prayer at the inauguration is exactly that, a religious figure. What difference does it make if it's the Pope, or Rick Warren. The great majority of clergy are anti gay marriage anyway. Maybe Warren is a bit more idiotic about his exibitions of bigotry than most, but who would the choice of gays be; Gene Robinson? Speaking of controversies...

[LiteSleeper]

But isn't that the point? You imply picking Gene Robinson would be more controversial, but more controversial to whom? A larger group of Americans? Exactly. This had everything to do with crass politics and pandering to a larger block of potential voters (who by the way would never vote for Obama). Therefore, it is easier and more beneficial to anger the smaller group (gays/lesbians) than it is to stand on principle and anger the larger group (evangelicals). You have implicitly supported the argument of those of us who find this repugnant. Again, it isn't really about Rick Warren. It is the fact that this was a shabby and cynical move that shows a marked indifference to the concerns of gay and lesbian Americans.

As an aside, I wouldn't have been for Gene Robinson because that choice also would have detracted from the event due to controversy. I just don't think it was important for Obama to inject controversy into this at all. There were plenty of people who would have been acceptable to both sides of this issue. I would've preferred Joel Osteen. He doesn't support gay marriage, but he isn't a lightening rod either.

[JimR]

You speak as if Obama did NOT also invite a pro-gay rights supporter to give a prayer, or a gay band to take part in the parade, a first for a presidential inauguration. Did those picks show indifference to gay and lesbian Americans?

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

LiteSleeper, I've enjoyed getting your perspective in these comments. Since you're talking about Gene Robinson here, I'd love to get your thoughts about a hypothetical.

Imagine that McCain won. Imagine that McCain invited Robinson to say a prayer at the inauguration. Imagine that the Religious Right was fuming about McCain's pick.

Would we think they were overreacting?

Would we see the Robinson invitation as a hopeful sign that McCain/Palin would govern in a way that would help gays and lesbians or would we see it as a conciliatory -- but ultimately meaningless -- bit of symbolism?

Just curious what you think. Thanks for putting so much energy into thinking about these issues and commenting here.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Thanks a lot for the refresher. The refresher-link to you tube should be an essential part of all mobbing-related professional communication via email.

And thanks for the advice to focus. Focus on a full-fledged all-enlightening anti-mobbing law should solve the problem and many related ones for good.

Can't anybody argue abstractly anymore? Call me ignorant or retarded or unaware, but methinks that the core of this problem has very little if anything to do with the notion or wording of marriage contracts.

It's about the good old bigotry of the petit bourgeois and the many sleazy advantages he thinks he can earn by conformism - and for that to work a perpetual effort has to be carried out to tarnish otherwise good reputations.

This is a mobbing problem, not a marriage problem, if you ask me. (Taking the equal rights that Obama already endorses as a given background.)

[ProudLiberalDan]

This blog is way off base.

1) It's not Obama being the object of bigotry here. There is one insulting and condescending blog post and comment after another insisting that the gay community accept what people of color, women and Jews would never be expected to accept if a newly elected President had picked a racist/seg­regationis­t, a misogynist or an antisemitic minister to participate in the inaugaration.

2) This isn't just about gay marriage. As heinous and immoral as Warren's support for the Yes on 8 campaign was, he goes much farther than that, comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia, and denying the legitimacy of our existence, believing we can be "cured" if we only "repent". Warren is nothing more than Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiin shirt and he's going to have to do a lot more than sweet talk Melissa Etheridge to prove he's not still the bigot he always ways.

3) Obama is the one who deliberate chose the Warren pick in part because he knew it would cause outrage in the gay community, and he would benefit with the large anti-gay population, as his poll numbers go ever higher in part because he stuck it to those uppity gays. Obama is not a saint or a political messiah. He's nothing more than another well-spoken, triangulating politician who's wrapped a DLC agenda in a new package branded as "new politics".

Instead of looking to Obama for guidance, look to Harvey Milk instead.

[Balancement]

Isn't it a shame that we have to keep repeating these facts over and over and over? I guess that there's some kind of blindness that people with all their rights automatically have.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Keep it up. Truth and justice will always prevail and may even sink in over time--not that it has to.

[JimR]

1) You are not the official spokesperson of all gay people. Many in the gay community are outraged. Many don't see it as that big of a deal, as this is not about policy.

2) Most major religions teach that homosexuality is wrong, so I take it you would also object to a Catholic priest, Jewish rabbi or Muslim imam saying a prayer.

3) Spin much?

[Balancement]

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” --Edmund Burke.

I'm not going to be quiet, stand by, and say nothing about the choice of Warren. To do so, would be to acquiesce to the evil that Warren represents.

[LiteSleeper]

Nobody cares about their religions. Stop throwing out false arguments. The particular issue at hand is the slap in the face and indifference of Obama to the gay and lesbian community. In the larger context, one's religion has nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution. Giving a place of respect to someone who doesn't want me to have my Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an insult and stupid.

[ProudLiberalDan]

(1) I am not the official spokesperson of any community, but I guarantee I am more of a spokesperson than many of the non-gays who are claiming what gays and lesbians should be saying and doing. Some (not many) gays don't see this as a big deal. Nearly every gay and lesbian I know at least sees this at least as a slap in the face.

(2) There are Catholic Priests, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imans and Buddhist monk and Hindu gurus who do not espouse anti-gay bigotry. There was no shortage of non-bigots for Obama to chose from. He found Lowery. That should have been the MINIMUM standard.

(3) Pot, meet kettle.

[xdevildawg4u]

There's another HUGE difference between Barack Obama and the gay community that makes the author's comparison unacceptable. PE Obama is in THE position of power whereas gay people aren't and never have been. It is completely inappropriate and even offensive for a person to compare the feelings of gay people who have just been stripped of rights to a person who just won the highest office in the world.

I agree with ProudLiberalDan. I get so sick and tired of straight married people telling gay people how they should and should not feel; how they should and should not react; what they should and should not want/ask for/demand.

Having grown up in Mississippi in the 1960's I've seen this type of arrogant, patriarchal, dismissive down speak from the majority to an oppressed minority before. It's truly amazing just how little difference there is in what I saw and heard in the 60's and what I'm seeing and hearing now. Different oppressed minority but otherwise the same script.

[JimR]

And I am sick and tired of people accusing me of telling gay people what to do. You do whatever you want. You want to criticize? Go ahead. Be loud and proud about it! But don't you DARE tell me my opinion means any less than yours.

Obama chose the Rev. Lowery, a gay rights supporter, to deliver the benediction. But is that acknowledged? No. You are too obsessed with Warren.

Obama chose an openly gay band to take part in the inaugural parade, an honor never before bestowed upon any gay group. The reaction from progressives and the gay community? Deafening silence.

But hey, I guess that's all you old-school liberals know how to do. Protest.

[LiteSleeper]

You Obamabots are missing the point. It isn't that anyone thinks this is about the fight for gay rights. It's about the fact that the PE has so thoroughly disrespected gays and lesbians with this choice and seems to be blindsided by the fact that this was a stupid, needlessly provocative choice. It shows a troubling indication of indifference to gay/lesbian issues, not to mention women. This is more about the disrespect and what it could portend rather than the act itself.

[ProudLiberalDan]

LIteSleeper, that's a great point.

[LiteSleeper]

Thanks Dan. You're one of my favorites.

[verycold]

I think the Obamabots are trying to rationalize Obama's decision because to do otherwise would mean this PE is just another politician. I can't pretend to know why Obama selected Warren except to take him at his word about reaching out. I personally think another day would have been much more appropriate. So I am saying continuing the dialogue is certainly the right thing to do, but good grief why further aggravate a very hot issue on that special day.

[LiteSleeper]

Exactly verycold. Dialogue is fine. Dialogue is good. It has its place and time. The inauguration however is neither

[teacheng]

This is some great advice. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, people!

[LiteSleeper]

This was just a dumb decision. There is no getting around that fact. Obama started believing his own hype too much and let his ego do something his mind should've stopped. Having Warren there accomplishes nothing but detracts much from his standing. You can't on the one hand say that he's only speaking a few words and they have no meaning, but on the other hand tell those angry over this that Obama has mouthed some words of support for gays and lesbians. Words and actions both have meaning its just that actions matter more. From our standpoint, we're given a bunch of half-hearted words stating that obama's a "fierce advocate" but preceded with an action of inviting a demagogue to the party. He's saying one thing and doing another. You can't say that having Warren give the invocation (words) has no meaning, but say that Obama's words of support do. You can try to dismiss that all you want, but at least be consistent. Warren is either a symbol with meaning speaking words with meaning, or He isn't. Likewise, either Obama's words and actions have meaning, or they don't.

[bpn]

Love the bigots,hate the bigotry

[southwindow]

No and no.
We should tolerate bigots, and not tolerate bigotry. This means allowing them to have there bigoted beliefs, their lives their own, but not giving them a platform, either to propagate bigotry or to validate it, especially not at the inauguration of a president ostensibly against it.
By the way, he is a "fierce advocate" for what now? equivocation?

[JusticeToAll]

My questions for Obama;

1. Are you saying you believe the treatment being received by GLBT citizens of Africa as condoned by Rick Warren is OK?

As reported by Bruce Wilson

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

The Kampala Monitor reports:

Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.

Warren was speaking in support of Ugandan Anglicans who intend to boycott the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and this harsh rejection of tolerance for gays and lesbians may have serious consequences in a country where homosexuals face harassment and and the threat of imprisonment.

2. Are you saying you believe that it is OK for Warren's African church protege's to tell women who are beaten by their husbands that they should "try harder to please them" - as referenced here in this article?:

Untold Consequences: Rick Warren's AIDS Activism
Kathryn Joyce December 19, 2008

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/4/8/p87480_index.html

(snip)

Other PEPFAR grantees, as Jacobson's colleagues in the global AIDS movement have witnessed, use their funds to promote fundamentalist interpretations of marital roles, advising women that if their husbands beat them, they should try harder to please them.
.

I believe the Warren choice is saying to the nation - It is OK for us to go along with Warren's views!

[ProudLiberalDan]

That's exactly what he's saying.

Obama's a smart, savvy politician. He knew ane welcomes the outrage this pick has caused. This amoral pick by Obama was cynical "two-fer". He gets points for reaching out to evangelicals and points from the large anti-gay population for sticking it to those gays. The sad but not unexpected thing is that this cynical ploy no doubt worked as we are a hated and despised minority.

But at least we know where we really stand with him beyond the speeches.

No gays in the cabinet, just a token appointment for the lowest white house post.

No promise to sign the U.S. up to the UN bill to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.

No statement from Team Obama acknowledging the outrage within the gay community, and certainly no expression of surprise, let alone apology, proving this was a cynical "poke-the-­gays-with-­a-stick" choice all along.

No doubt we will be told that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and DOMA and federally recognized civil unions will be pushed back into a theoretical second term, and it will never be the right time to stand up for us because there is too much political advantage to be had by triangulating against us.

And we can look forward to years of Obama-apologists giving us insulting and condescending lectures about inclusiveness and forever telling us "the time isn't right", and we should just "trust" their political hero.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

Team Obama has lost this constituents support!

[JimR]

Impressive prognostication.

Tell me, who's going to win the World Series next year?

[FlamingLibrul]

Dan, thanks for pointing out things that many of us wish we could articulate. You and LiteSleeper can represent me anytime. :-)

I've been answering back on too many threads to count, but the enormity of this unnecessary insult falls on many deaf ears and closed minds. Anyone who is Pro-Choice and despises anti-semitism should also be outraged by the honor given to Mr. Megachurch.

[reedmaker]

Obama is a politician, and he acts like one. I have a multitude of more appropriate role models in my life.

Civil rights are gained by vociferously and articulately asserting and defending one's equality. Of course I will "move on from this." But I think dwelling for a bit on Warren's intolerant attitudes-­-completel­y undeserving of the honor of speaking at the inaugural, is also necessary.

[JimR]

Warren is opposed to gay marriage. So is the Rev. Lowery, Chief Justice Roberts, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Should they be booted off the stage, as well?

[JusticeToAll]

It isn't "just" about gay marriage - it is about women's rights, civil rights, faith-based money, African proteges of Warren and their tactics in Africa - My question is where is this going from here? Read these links for more if you care to learn the truth:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/warren-endorsed-nigerian_b_153412.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1830147,00.html

[reedmaker]

Hi JimR,

Warren likens gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. He also believes that women should be subservient to men and that legalized abortion is like the Holocaust. The other people you mention do not share these views. If you don't think this is an important distinction, then there is nothing more to say.

[AbbieXHoffman]

None of them used their name, brand and following to pass Prop 8 and none of them followed that act with inflammatory statements about gays.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Standard fed "talking point".

Warren compares gay relationships with incest and pedophilia, he denies the legitimacy of our existence believing we can be "cured". He is the nothing more than Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiin shirt.

Obama-apologists should try some spinning that includes all the facts.

[LiteSleeper]

Obama did not have to make this choice. It's his mistake and he should deal with it. Obviously, telling people to get over it and being even more patronizing than is wise isn't squashing this tumult, so why don't you all try something else?

[mcpizzie]

The day will come when Team Obama will come looking for time, energy, and especially MONEY from the gay community. While he stands "on the wrong side of history" on gay marriage, we'll be out looking for a new candidate.

[diamondgirl9]

Good luck!

[LiteSleeper]

Be careful what you wish for diamondgirl. Many of you who are so enamored of having Rick Warren at this invocation are the same ones who can never be found when it is time to man telephone banks and go door to door to hand out literature. The gay community on the other hand pitches in much more than many of you and hands over more cash. Take that help for granted at your peril.

[Balancement]

You have no idea how many GLBT people worked for Obama, donated to Obama--and worst of all, actually believed that the American ideal of "equal rights for ALL citizens" was actually going to be on the President's agenda come January 21. His choice of Warren belies that--and is an insult to all GLBT people who were duped into believing in his message of "hope" and his message of "change." We may not find another candidate--but there are many of us who will no longer give of our time or our money next time. (And as an aside, this *sop* to the religious right will not convince any of them to work for or donate to him either--so it's a lose/lose for Obama on this one.)

[JumpDownTurnAround]

You got that right!

[AguynamedWayne]

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion" and that her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement.

-Coretta Scott King

Source: Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

[PallinAround]

Why do you suppose that gays don't support blacks more and vice versa? Seems ML and Coretta King see the similarities, yet I see a whole lot of division between the two camps. It seems that Blacks in Cali are being blamed, to a degree, for supporting Prop 8. Assuming that's the case, why would that be? To the LGBT contingent: you would do well to dialogue with the Black community and help them to see the similarities in your plight and their historic one -- they are likely going to be your key to having Prop 8 repealed, as it should be.

[AbbieXHoffman]

So civil rights a "distraction".

Look, I am all for reaching out, seeing what you have in common with your opposition, etc., but reaching out is NOT the same as honoring as BO is doing to Warren. I assure BO never intended to reach out to Warrren on gay rights issues and remember gays aren't the ones who invite Warren so everyone please cut the crap that this all about "reaching out".

Since he can't walk back on the invite without doing political damage, he is going to move forward and try to put a positive spin on the invitation claiming, inclusions and "reaching out" but we all know it's BS damage control. He has to do it, but don't start excusing it and telling gays to "get over it".

Gays, as any group should, should speak up loudly anytime their civil rights are being damaged and in this case anytime someone who worked to deny them civil rights is being honored.

[WFIGUY]

No one's civil rights are being violated or denied. Gay men are free to marry any women that is willing and of legal age. Gay women are free to marry any man this is willing and of legal age. That is the civil right currently enjoyed by heterosexual United States Citizens. Homosexual citizens are asking for "special" rights. Sorry, we all get the same set of rights.

[burndtdan]

That's a really stupid argument.

[AbbieXHoffman]

The law does not specify the gender. So yeah...there should be no problem under the law with gays marrying others of the same gender. Awesome!

[StevenKeirstead]

You should realize telling gay men and lesbians they can only marry someone of the opposite sex is ridiculous, and frankly insulting. What if you were told you could only marry someone you could never love, and you could not marry the one person you love truly? You would not accept that, so why should anyone else?

By the way any gay or lesbian couple in the US can come to Massachusetts or Connecticut to get legally married. It is not a special right here in Boston, due to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health of 2003. In Boston I married my husband last year after 16 years of being together. I will take on anyone who tries to take our marriage away from us, or to deny that right to any same sex couple in the US

[burndtdan]

Civil rights is not a distraction. But an inaugural prayer will neither grant nor deny anyone any civil rights. This is a battle that, no matter how it concludes, does not move you any closer or farther to your real goals. It can, however, make the actual battle harder, because you are using your own political capital to fight it.

[AbbieXHoffman]

1. I am not gay but I consider the denial of civil rights to anyone in the USA my issue.
2. The inaugural prayer is an honor and anyone who works to deny civil rights (as Warren did with prop 8 and then further insulted gays by making disparaging comments) should not be honored. Doing so, says one can still insult and work to deny civil rights and be honored by this country. Nope.
3. The battle is important because gays right to marry will be decided in the SC via the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The SC hears cases that are of high controversy and in the national dialogue. You have to make noise and make the legal argument to make change. Sorry if you don't like the noise, but this is the USA and that is part of our system.

[JimR]

Please explain how your civil rights are being violated by Rick Warren saying a prayer at the inauguration.

[AbbieXHoffman]

1. I am not gay but think anyone who's civil rights are denied in the US becomes my issue.

"Please explain how your civil rights are being violated by Rick Warren saying a prayer at the inauguration."

They are not being violated by having Warren say a prayer, gay rights are being ignored by honoring a man who worked to deny civil rights and who said very inflammatory thing about gays.

Answer me this. How would David Duke saying this prayer be a problem for you?

[Keith52]

This is not the civil rights battleground. (The inaugural prayer) POLICY and law is the battleground. Warren will not be making policy. But Warren WILL be softening the hearts of his constituency with his example of his willingness to sit at the same table without shaking fists at each other and discussing. Get it?

[AbbieXHoffman]

Warren is not ever going to change his views on gay marriage and his invitation and acceptance of it has NOTHING to do with gay marraige.

Warren and his ilk will never change their mind because to do so would mean that the bible is not to be interpreted literally and since the literal interpretation of the bible matters to Warrens existence, career and life, he's not going to budge.

Again his invitation was not extended or accepted to bridge a gap on civil rights for gays.

Get it?

[LiteSleeper]

You're exactly right. It's BS damage control, not brilliance.

[AJBF]

Quigg, it's easy for you and, according to you, also Obama, to ignore such a slap in the face because you don't (nor Obama) wake up every day to face having your civil rights trampled on. Obama and Michelle enjoyed and continue to enjoy full protection and rights under the law, no matter how many slaps in the face he received or will in future receive. Big difference.

[PallinAround]

So all you see is that they're able to legally marry so, therefore, they enjoy full protection and rights under the law. They're African Americans! The discrimation they have no doubt encountered may not pertain to *marriage* but please don't minimize it! African Americans are subjected to under the radar violations of their rights all the time -- unless you are also AA, I think it's fair to say you enjoy better treatment than they do in many areas of life. Being gay isn't something people can "see" and automatically hold against you -- like when you apply for a job, put an offer on a house, or merely just walk down the street in an "upscale, white neighborhood"?

[panamaguy]

Who said anything about minimizing African Americans.­...uh...yo­u did.

[americanboi]

As an AA, I wouldn't approve of a person who has made incendiary comments about my people. I would think that gays feel the same.

No one group has the authority on discrimination and bigotry. Barack wouldn't invite a person who's made those statements about AA's and he shouldn't have invited Warren for a similar reason.

[curly2]

"Being gay isn't something people can "see" and automatically hold against you"

Tell that to all of the gay men and women that have been beaten or murdered for "looking" gay. Most recently, the lesbian outside of San Francisco who was beaten and gang-raped.

[PallinAround]

To curly2 below -- some people may "look gay" and aren't. It's hard to look African American and not actually BE African American (Black)... point being you can cover up being gay to a casual observer a lot more than you can cover up being Black.

Is it just a bad habit for you to miss the larger point? Once you figure out how to stop doing that, you might have better luck in your quest for legal protection for civil unions. I don't expect you to have that epiphany any time soon judging from your knee-jerk, emotional reaction, but I do hope you eventually get there. Good luck.

[knobandtube]

Exactly and when gay people come out to their families they are at risk of losing them. I don't think an African American ever lost their family for proclaiming they were AA.

But this isn't a competition about which class of Americans is treated the worst,. It's about treating us all EQUALLY.

[WFIGUY]

To which Civil rights are you referring? The right to marry is granted all United States Citizens. Just because you can't marry the person you want because it is currently illegal, doesn't mean that your civil right to marry is being trampled. I can't currently marry someone under the age of 16, or multiple women, but I have not had my right to marry removed. Special rights are not civil rights.

[PATina]

I can't currently marry someone under the age of 16,

I wonder why that has changed? Back in 1940... my 15 year old grandmother married my 21 year old grandfather... and it was perfectly legal. Now... my grandfather would be considered a pedophile. Weird.

[JayJonson]

Thanks for cavalierly dismissing our lives. Jerk.

[AbbieXHoffman]

The DOMA act is unconstitutional and will be shown as such in due time.

[LiteSleeper]

You dont belong here troll. Shoe!

[Jaidit]

You're essentially quoting Warren in your comments and you must know by now how his comments have ben received.

The bans on marrying children, close relatives, or multiple partners (to bring you up to all three of Warren's examples) are based on a presumption of harm. These are relationships that are likely to harm one of the individuals involved. In fact, these relationships aren't just frowned on, the public policy concerns are enough that they are illegal.

Now throw in same-sex couples and it's time to play "One of these things in not like the other." Yes, I know that many Christians feel that same-sex relationships are harmful. The evidence argues against them. Truth is not on their side. Unlike these other relationships, it's legal to be in a same-sex relationship.

If there is no harm to the relationship. then the State has no reason to forbid a marriage license. It'd be like forbidding a marriage between a left-hander and a blond. On what grounds?

You have the right to marry an unmarried, non-related adult. That's exactly the right I'm fighting for.

[SiberianRat]

"wake up every day to face having your civil rights trampled on"--Is that what you do? Approach your day from that perspective?