Beyond Rick Warren
The gay community was hit harshly with realities over the last few weeks as a cabinet and senior White House staff was chosen in a Democratic administration that did not include a gay or lesbian appointee* and Pastor Rick Warren was chosen to give the Invocation on Inauguration Day.
The advantage in having disagreements with a new President early in the administration -- indeed before it has begun -- is that it puts both the election and the future in perspective. Governing is not campaigning. Campaigning is only about hope and promise. In many ways, it is about the suspension of belief because retaining the passion for the work requires unending enthusiasm for a candidate and a cause. Governing this country at a time of such crisis will be so much more difficult. And it is so much more fraught with unsatisfying compromises.
So despite my view that Inauguration day is a celebration that shouldn't be marred by the messy process of political compromise, I accept that for President-elect Obama, Inauguration Day is his first day of governing. He made a choice I disagree with and I won't soon forget the smugness of Warren's response. But, Barack Obama will own this inauguration, not Rick Warren. And I still believe in Barack Obama.
I still believe that he will lead our country to greater prosperity; health care for all; an energy policy that promotes a clean environment and a new economy. And I still believe that President Obama will work to enact public policy for to improve the lives of LGBT Americans. There will be missteps and compromises along the way. And those that simply don't understand what it means to be different in this world will have far more influence than I'd like in the debate. But the messy process of governing will also bring about progress in an Obama administration that will propel equality significantly forward.
There is a new political reality for LGBT people to deal with and how it works will be a measure of the sophistication and capability of the community. It was never a community that represented more than 6 or 7% of the vote in most campaigns, and it seems the biggest numbers are achieved in districts that are already reliably Democratic. Raising and giving political money always helped the community to play a larger role at the table than its numbers would seemingly offer and yet in this new era of online fundraising, constituent fundraising has diminishing importance. So we saw lots of mollifying and calculating when it came to new Obama administration appointees for other constituencies but to date not much more than a little handwringing when it came to LGBT appointees. Some good appointees are still to come even though it wasn't a priority for the top jobs.
The power of gay people is not in our numbers. It is in the number of people we touch. It is in families and workplaces and religious homes that allies are born and political progress is made. We build our base one coming out at a time - one show of support from a straight friend or colleague- one caring parent or sibling taking action - one moment where we seek help from others. It is hard work to convince people that their interests are your interests. That when it comes to equal rights, we are all in this together. But that is the job the community must continue to do despite the setbacks and disappointments. Even when it appears that they don't get it, we must give our straight friends who want to be "fierce advocates" for equality, the benefit of the doubt. We must give them our hands. And we must do the work together.
Happy holidays to all!
*This takes nothing away from open lesbian Nancy Sutly, new chief of the White House Council on Environmental Quality but that post is outside the power center of the White House and very issue specific.
Follow Hilary Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hilaryr
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And the opiate of the people is...
There is a big difference between rival opinions and bigotry. Sharing a stage with those with opposing views is tolerance, sharing it with bigots is complicity.
I am not gay, but according to Rick Warren, as a secular Jew, I am going to hell anyway. According to Warren so would Obama’s own mother. The tone is gentle; the words are pure hate mongering.
One quarter of Evangelicals voted for Obama, Jews, atheist, agnostics, gays and other liberal heretics voted for him in the 90% range. We are all insulted. We already had a president for the Christian Nation, Obama was supposed to be the president of the whole nation; Warren’s voice is insulting, embarrassing, his gentle manner belies the white cloak of his believes.
On an even more basic and fundamental point, lets start with the irony of swearing on a bible to protect and defend the Constitution, separation of State and church excepted. Religion, not spirituality, but fundamentalist organize religion playing a staring roll in the inauguration is an abominable distortion of the fundamental principles of the constitution and democracy itself.
As an 18 year old bisexual who just voted for the first time, having a president(-elect) who seemed revolutionary and offered change throughout his entire campaign has done something completely against everything I hoped for when casting my vote to have him as my president. Having him say that the diversity is "part of the magic of this country" is utterly pathetic and ignorant. Is it magical that in the United States people who are lesbian, gay, bi, or transsexual are discriminated against and that numerous amount of hate crimes and harassment occur each and every year? I have already regretted voting for Barack Obama and am highly discouraged to ever vote for anyone again. Rick Warren and others like him are the type of people that need to be changed, not the other way around and having them displayed as "American heroes" goes against everything that I believe in.
The language we choose when voice our opinion matters. Rick Warren chooses to use language that demonizes by comparing us to pedophiles, polygamists and incestuous lovers. This is reminiscent of the white supremacist attitude that black men were nothing but hormone driven maniacs out to rape any white woman that came along. This attitude led to brutality--think Emmett Till--who was murdered talking to a white woman in 1955. Now before all of you who think no comparison to black civil rights is valid, I am not comparing the consequences, gay couple who can't marry aren't being lynched. I am comparing the mindset and whether it's race, or sexual orientation, or gender demonizing human beings who are striving for the ideal of equality that Jefferson promised in 1776 is simply wrong.
So, Rick Warren can disagree with me all day long and preach a theology that allows straight only marriage AND give the invocation at the inauguration. I won't like it, but I'll accept it. What he shouldn't be allowed to get away with is the use of language that demonizes me and my husband by comparing our love to incest, polygamy and pedophilia. Obama should know better.
I don't understand what the big issue is. The man is going to give a prayer--about two minutes. Can't we all just get along and respect each others views even if we don't agree with them? Come on people this is a grand time for us liberals and here we are being divisive-exactly what the Repubs are hoping for. You guys sound like the right wingers in relation to abortion/pro life issues--i.e. you are either pro-life or you are wrong and a sinner; now with the gays/lesbian community--you are either 100% for gays/lesbian and all they stand for or you are a traitor. We are liberals lets remain open minded and not shut ourselves off like the conservatives.
No, ltva. You are either for gay/lesbian rights or you're a BIGOT (and you don't have to be a right winger to be bigoted). I'm all for open-mindedness, but not for people with closed minds.
I don't fully understand where you are trying to go with your reply but it sounds like a conservative view to me and for the record I am not a bigot. I am an OPEN MINDED LIBERAL who voted for Obama because I trust and believe he will do the right thing for all people. Not just gay people, not just lesbian people, not just people of color people and not just white people. If you are gay or lesbian and voted for Obama because you thought he was going to agree with you and all issues related to the gay/lesiban community then, you voted for him for the wrong reasons. He is not going to be able to please all of the people all of the time. I understood him to say that he was going to try and bring people of different views and opinions together. Him having Warren give a 2 minute prayer, to me, is a trivial thing that could lead to a bigger coming together of us all.
Simmer down everyone. Why is it so hard to trust the Universe to unfold exactly what we need. People need to realize that we create our realities with our thoughts. We all created Warren, we all created Obama we all created the gay marriage decision for a reason. We need to look a little deeper and learn to trust ourselves, trust the Universe and trust Obama. It took years for Civil Rights to kick in and sure blacks complained along the way - but we continued to move forward knowing that something would change and things have! And still are!! I'm not giving you the BE PATIENT speech, I am simply stating that if we want real progress we have to learn the Law of Attraction and accept that we are creating our lives with out thoughts. What we focus on expands...so focus on what you want not what you don't have. here is help http://hakashamut.wordpress.com Enjoy! Make Magic !
Does Rick Warren have that kind of power over you. Please.
People on this thread seem to be on the edge-about to jump-over Rick Warren. Huh?
Listening to President-Elect Obama's comments about this issue I was struck by this thought: Would "separate, but equal" suit him if it pertained to Sasha and Malia? I think not! While listening to Pastor Warren state his case, I was intrigued by his answer when he stated that for him, it was an issue of "maturity, and denying your "bad" impulses". Well, obviously that's never applied to him at the buffet table! Now, simmer down - as a former, now current fatty myself, I get to make this point! Apparently, he's never felt the need to deny THOSE impulses! How sad that a supposed "Man of God" feels compelled to judge others so harshly when he's never walked in their shoes. There's enough hate in the world already - can't religion, especially, provide a safe harbor? Apparently NOT!
**Would "separate, but equal" suit him if it pertained to Sasha and Malia?**
EXACTLY! Thank you.
For all you posters who think Rick Warren was a good pick....
You are in esteemed company...
Charles Krauthammer
Pat Buchanan
Bill Krystal
James Dobson
Mitt Romney
Fred Barnes
G W Bush
I am sure you will all be rewarded!
Hilary, I have always admired you, but you've got this one wrong. There should be no pass for Obama on this one. It is clearly a shot to the heart of LBGT communities across this country and one we will never forgive or forget. As a gay woman yourself, aren't you tired of being the proverbial wedge in the wedge issue? When will those in the political realm realize that we are tired, soulfully tired of being battered and used for managing the religious right constituency? Will this continue to go on until it no longer works for Obama or the democrats who have never been there for us? I remember the during the campaign that Hillary Clinton sent an open letter to the LBGT community about respect and fighting bigotry. I can't help but believe that our entire community really missed a great chance in not working harder to get her elected. She understood our needs. I feel Obama does not care about LBGTs, except through dollar signs. I will will not give him a pass on this bigoted move, and I, like so many others will I will work to get him out of office as quickly as he came in. He will get no support from me and I will not forget.
I agree swoosie.
Every decision President Elect Obama makes is important; it reveals who he is. He wants to be inclusive, that's well and good. But his timeing was off on this one with making the decision to add Warren to inaugeration. There are many other Christians he could have chosed.
It' s not a gay issue, it's about who Obama is, what he stood for in primary, and how he will govern.
So we can thank you in advance for Palin, '12?
"So we can thank you in advance for Palin, '12?"
Wow, never heard something like that before. Except whenever someone wants to dismiss someone else's disillusionment and anger about--wait for it--being dismissed.
Anyway, I don't know about Swoozie, but you may thank me if Obama doesn't stop kissing the asses of people who are all about equating me with pedophiles, believing my long-term relationship is equivalent to incest, thinking my being a woman means I am less than any man. So, if Palin runs in '12, and if Obama does not thoroughly clean up his rightwing pandering act, and if he continues to subscribe to the idea that separate is equal when it has been clearly demonstrated not to be, I will throw away my vote on a real liberal candidate and you can pound sand while blaming me if Palin wins.
Hilary says: "And I still believe that President Obama will work to enact public policy for to improve the lives of LGBT Americans."
With McClurkin, his tepid support of "No on 8," and his choice of Warren, I think I'm running out of cheeks to turn. He has a funny way of showing his support. Let's see: slap me once, shame on you. Slap me twice ... well, gulp, okay ... Gee, shame on me. Slap me thrice ... hey, wait a minute, shame on ME?
I have never seen anything like this. Obama is a uniter not a divider, that is why I voted for him. He said many times there are not red states or blue states, just united states. If we as African Americans can understand that he is the president of all the people and not just us, why can't you? We are willing to give him a chance without making unreasonable demands before he has had a chance to prove himself. About Prop 8, I voted against it because I do not believe in taking rights away from anyone. However, I don't believe in same sex marriage and it does not even come close to the Black Civil Rights movement. Many Blacks voted against Prop. Obama opposed it. But, the first thing you do is blame blacks for it not passing. I felt that was unfair. I felt that you did not do enough to get your message across. It was advertised that children would be taught about same sex marriage in school if you voted no. It was after I voted that I saw Obama was against it and it was not about what would be taught in school. I am a news junky so I new about the civil rights issue. But, most people are not, So, if you had done more to get the word out, you might not be in the place you are today.
Hillary,
I wish I could still share your enthusiasm about Obama and his purported commitment to equal rights for the LGBT community.
However, I can't. You see, I still remember Bill Clinton hugging the gay rights activist and saying "I feel your pain." I remember that same Bill Clinton subjecting gay rights visitors to the White House being subjected to embarrassing rubber glove searches that heterosexual visitors weren't. I remember Clinton instituting Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act in the middle of the night because the institution of marriage needed to be protected from gays -- even though he couldn't keep it in his pants in the oval office with a woman who was NOT his wife.
Obama, as you pointed out, hasn't appointed anyone from the LGBT community to a high position in his administration. I suspect he won't. He got our vote -- he doesn't need us now.
Call me cynical. I've heard too many politicians SAY they're for equality only to have their actions prove otherwise.
How do you know if someone he has appointed is not a gay or lesbian?
Obama's camp knows, with all the vetting they've done. And they would make a deal of it, I believe, if they had.
As one who is old enough to have marched in Washington after Clinton was elected, I think it was May, 1993, the excitement of that election was soon extinguished with the double whammy of DADT and DOMA...those were Clinton inventions.
Now there are those who would argue that Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress. Well, he didn't for the first two years; and secondly, does anybody really believe that Pelosi and Reid are going to stand up for GLBT people? They haven't even been able to stand up for the Constitution to this point and acquiesced to every silly Bush tantrum.
You're a lot more optimistic than I am, Ms. Rosen.
I support Obama's agenda as he laid it out during the primaries and the election (which included, if you will remember, civil unions for gays). I hope his agenda eventually supports all gay causes, which, in practical terms is everyone's cause.
However, his choice of the preacher from Sattleback Church who is apparently intent on turning Brokeback Mountain into a straights-only sanctuary was wrong and will stick my craw for his entire Administration.
But my temperment on this subject goes even deeper on the disappointment side.
I am an atheist who has always believed in a strict separation of church and state. In this vein, I see no reason to have a religious invocation of any kind, especially one from the representative of a faith that has proven hypocritical, arrogant and deadly throughout the ages and continues to separate "us" from "them" while offering eternal damanation to the infidel; a religion that even now tends more toward Leviticus than the Sermon on the Mount.
To those who see an invocation as a mandatory function in this process, I say base it on the third meaning given in the dictionary:
Quoting of something as reason: the act of calling upon or quoting something such as a law as a reason or justification.
Thomas Jefferson would certainly be proud.
I am a straight, white, mainstream, married woman. I never had to "convince" anyone that I deserved to have my civil rights. Why should gay people, or any other people, need to do so?
If African Americans in the sixties needed to convince the rest of America that they deserved their civil rights, de-segregation and anti-discrimination policy would never have happenned.
In fact, the Constitution guarantees ALL Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gay marriage is an integral part of that happiness for gay people, and is not a violation of anything in the Constitution or any civil law. If it violates religious law (for some people), then those religions can refuse to recognize them, but the civil rights that come with civil marriage are NOT the domain of religions.
The solution to this wave of discrimination (one of many in our history) will need to come from the US Supreme Court. It is their role to interpret the Constitution and protect the rights it guarantees to all Americans, including minorities.
I am personally offended by the notion that a person must be "acceptable" to the general public to receive his/her civil rights.
Many thanks. Well and simply put!
Precisely. Why should civil rights be up for a popular vote in our constitutional system? I should not have the ability to cast a vote on anyone's rights.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
