Every week or so, Joe Biden sends me an email and tells me how expensive the transition is, and asks me to contribute yet again. This morning, after I gasped at the ridiculous choice of homophobe and anti-choice activist Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inaugural, there was Joe again, holding out his hand. In his note to me, Joe didn't seem at all perturbed by his new alliance with a man who rejects and condemns everything I stand for. Joe just wanted my money.
I handed the Obama campaign as much as I was allowed to over the fall, and I bet I gave them a good deal more than anyone at the Saddleback Church. My suggestion to Joe is that instead of coming to me for money, he spend a little of his own and go see Milk, which I did last night. By the end of that movie, pretty much everyone in the audience around me was sniffling and weeping. It's a sad movie, and what's sad is not just that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were shot by a homophobic religious nut. What's sad is that Milk was shot in 1978, thirty years ago, and Rick Warren still hasn't learned which way is up--or rather, which way is the decent, Christian, and humane way to be--that is, give all Americans equal rights and stop fomenting prejudice and hatred against people you don't agree with.
Rick Warren gets a free ride, tax-wise, from me, because his political action committee is disguised as a "church". That's bad enough, and I plan to work hard to take away his free ride, but what's worse is that Joe Biden is asking me again and again for a donation so that he and Barack Obama can give Rick Warren, hate-monger, a platform. Joe, I've watched the transition and I've held my tongue and given you guys a chance to show your true colors. But don't ask me for any more money until you figure out that Rick Warren hasn't been buttering your bread. People like me have been doing that, and we are getting a little ticked off.
I understand and embrace the president-elect’s intention to demonstrate a big-tent philosophy from the very beginning of his term, and a respectful nod to America’s Evangelicals is acceptable and overdue. But Obama had thousands of Evangelical ministers to choose from, and he picked one of the most vocal opponents of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. Bottom line: intolerance gets a prime-time media spot that money can’t buy.
When Mr. Warren’s selection was announced, I thought it was a really dumb-headed mistake by the president-elect. But the Obama campaign doesn’t make "mistakes". The reaction to Warren was carefully calculated, and Obama decided that dismissing GLBT voters by raising a preacher of intolerance to the inaugural stage was an acceptable risk. This is not an insignificant decision; it changes Obama’s social message to, “intolerance won’t be tolerated, except where gays are concerned.”
That’s why I want my money back.
Ed Donovan
Pittsburgh
In order to understand what Barack Obama might be up to with his inaugural invitation to Rick Warren, may I suggest you read:
Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation, by John Carlin.
Just because Obama's a Democrat doesn't mean he gets a free pass core issues.
I'm not really a one issue voter, but I only vote for those who support equal human rights, civil rights, justice, and freedom for all persons. -- Well, I made an exception for same-sex marriage because I thought it would hurt Democrats and its time hadn't quite arrived.
But, then there was Obama and Donny McClurkin, Obama and James Meeks, and, now, Obama and Rick Warren. I haven't demanded that same-sex marriage be made the law of the land, but I expected that Democrats would at least minimize the harm to gays and wouldn't harm gays gratuitously when there were no critical political points to be scored.
Obama could have reached out to black Evangelicals without Donny McClurkin. Obama can find a better spiritual adviser than James Meeks. Obama has many ways he can reach out to Rick Warren without inviting him to offer the inauguration invocation.
Jane, I'm glad you've finally had enough.
Nancy Pelosi, in particular, as Speaker of the House is perhaps the only person with the position and clout to really talk turkey with Obamal. She represents arguably the gayest congressional district in the country. Why is it that her website is filled with congratulatory messages about Obama's cabinet appointees and not one word about Pastor Rick Warren's inaugural speech on it? Isn't she hearing from you who she represents in DC???
What makes you think we haven't? We're flooding every avenue possible with mail, email, unsubscribing from change.gov - everything we possible can.
We are sending the message LOUD AND CLEAR!
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The thing is -- my marriage has been dissolved by plebicite last month -- how about an unequivocal statement of support of gay Americans by Mr. Obama? Is that too much to ask from him? Haven't we given enough to deserve at least that? -- especially in the face of the assualt on our exisiting civil rights by people such as Mr. Warren? I was offended by the brush-off from the Transition folks and then emails for asking for my money.
I am a gay man, a husband/partner, donor, entrepreneur, business owner, cancer survivor (I was disgnosed with Lymphoma after my partner and I had been together for about six months, a lesser person would haved bolted -- but not him, it took four years (not months, years) of chemo and I am in remission still more than three years later -- if that isn't love and doen't deserve recognition and dignity I don't know what does.) , volunteer, and a taxpayer.
When is time in America that I no longer have to make the case for my own humanity?
Can anyone tell me?
I respect your choice not to do so but I'll try to remedy the problem with what I can afford to give from my lower income.
Obama seems to have an ability to work with people he disagrees with strongly, keeping in mind the goal supersedes his personal emotional response. Like it or night, evangelicals are a strong force in this country, and condemnation and anger will only serve to solidify their biases.
Now, Obama's explainations equating dehumanizing disparagement of Gays to mere policy disagreements is even worse, more hurtful and, frankly, dismissive of Gays altogether. So, unnecessary....so sad.
I agree that the discrimination against and hatred for gays, lesbians, etc, in this country is appalling. I find Warren's comments reprehensible.
However, I couldn't disagree with you more when you say won't support Obama/Biden anymore because you paid for their dinner and then they didn't come across. Where's the romance in a quid pro quo arrangement? And what are the dating alternatives to them?
P.S. I like your novels and your love affair with horses. And I will continue to buy your books and read them and enjoy them, even though I dislike your support for pay-to-play politics.
Unless the message is that its OK for religious figures to speak out against abortion, BUT they will not be allowed to coerce government into enforcing their position. There is some common ground--neither side wishes to see large numbers of abortions, after all. It wouldn't hurt if young people got more teaching about real life, to give them more of a sense of planning a future--that would include financial education as well as sex and love education. I know that's not the plan of the evangelicals. But inauguration day should be for all Americans. Maybe Obama can explain to evangelicals why the constitution insulates government from religious control.
If it makes you feel better, look at it as magnanimity in victory.
Obama always presented a very centrist approach--he triangulated rightward from Hillary. So nobody should be surprised if he governs with a centrist style.