On Rick Warren: What Are we Fighting For?

Don't email me -- at least not for a day, or two. My inbox exploded.

I received a courtesy call yesterday afternoon from my I.T. expert after she noticed that my inbox had reached its capacity. "It's okay," I responded as I assured her that the sudden surge in messages wasn't due to Internet spam. "It's Rick Warren."

While the Rev. Rick Warren is best known to America as the author of A Purpose Driven Life, the Reverend betrayed his carefully crafted image of a moderate evangelical by aggressively supporting the passage of Proposition 8 -- and blatantly "bearing false witness" in the process. In his support for the measure Warren misleadingly argued that the proposition was needed to legally protect the free speech of those that disagreed with the freedom to marry. As incorrect as that line is, it was left largely unchecked by the media in the days leading up to the Election -- thus contributing significantly to Proposition 8's passage.

So why was my inbox exploding yesterday instead of back in November? Yesterday morning, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced that Warren would deliver the invocation at the ceremony on January 20. "Did you see this?" questioned many of the emails with blog links, press releases, and media write-ups included, while even more asked, "Aren't you outraged?"

However, only a few emails asked the most relevant question: "What should we do?"
Like many, I am angry and outraged that Rick Warren was chosen to give the invocation for an administration that was elected with the promise of change. How did the Inaugural team -- which includes openly LGBT people -- let this one slip through the cracks? In the context of the passage of Proposition 8, the choice of Warren is particularly stinging to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans and our allies. His words have been hurtful and, more importantly, his actions have been harmful.

The choice of Warren also underscores the fact that no openly-LGBT participant has been selected to take part in the Inaugural ceremony, no openly-LGBT person has been chosen to serve in the presidential cabinet, no openly-LGBT personnel have been named to any level of the White House staff, and only one openly-gay presidential appointee (Nancy Sutley) has been announced to date by the transition team.

Our community -- at least from what my inbox has seen -- has been quick to share our anger at this choice. But while advocates -- especially the LGBT netroots -- are rightfully telling the incoming administration that this isn't right, our community has been slow to share a solution.

Unfortunately, this is a pattern in modern LGBT advocacy. We saw the same anger over rumors earlier this year that former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia (the architect of opposition in 1993 to service by openly-gay military personnel) was being considered for the position of Vice President. Our community loudly said "No to Nunn!"- just as we said "No to Nunn!" to similar rumors in 2004 and 2000. Yet, in saying "no" our community failed to share what we could say "yes" to.

If we want to enact pro-equality policy and change, we need to take a page out of Harvey Milk's playbook: we have to give them hope. We need to say what we want, not just what we don't want.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the Transition Office have heard our anger. We have their attention. So, now is the time to offer them our solutions. What can the Inaugural Committee the Transition Office and the LGBT & allied community now do together?

Here are three things that we can advocate for.

Our inclusion at the Inauguration
The inaugural ceremony is a celebration of the entire American family. Having an openly-LGBT member of our family participate in that event would speak loudly to our American values. Can we do that? Yes we can.

An Openly-LGBT Cabinet Member
Building a diverse presidential cabinet that reflects the talents of our nation is a strength that can be fortified with an openly-LGBT cabinet member. We have a great candidate in Mary Beth Maxwell, who is often mentioned as a potential choice for Secretary of Labor. Can we do that? Yes we can.

Openly-LGBT Presidential Appointees and White House Staff
As scores of presidential appointments are being announced, we have only received word of one openly-LGBT appointee - and no openly-LGBT White House staff. The Victory Fund has partnered with dozens of organizations (including Stonewall Democrats) on a tremendous project that has helped to identify talented prospects for these positions. So, can we work with the Victory Fund and Transition Office to address this? Yes we can.

I've said I'm angry, but I'm also offering three concrete suggestions. We all know from our personal lives and advocacy that it requires more than anger to move individuals and institutions. By offering a solution -- and our partnership -- we are able to apply accountability and measure results.

Just as we voted for change in the White House, we need to also change how our community does advocacy -- especially in how we respond to setbacks. Facing four years of a friendly Administration and Congress, our community will make great progress on issues of equality. We are also going to find ourselves disappointed and angry at times -- just as we have found ourselves angry with the selection of Rick Warren. Sometimes the mistakes will be unintentional, sometimes they may show negligence, and other times the mistakes may call for aggressive campaigning if it looks like our equality is being traded for political gain. But we have to stop just simply saying "no." Statistics show that it didn't work when Nancy Reagan said it and it doesn't work for getting us closer to equality.

This is an opportunity to not only to change the Inaugural ceremony, but to change ourselves. Let's use this moment to train ourselves to not just react in anger, but to leverage missteps with corrective actions that actually contribute to the implementation of pro-equality policy.

So post your ideas on change.gov. Write to the Transition and Inaugural teams to share your disappoint with Rev. Warren, but couple it with suggestions for improvements.

And yes, feel free to CC me on those emails. I went ahead and paid for a bigger email inbox.

Comments

[NLEBOON1653]

As a GAY-MUSLIM with two children, and a partner for 15 years this Obama is another BS crap that I fell for! I gave him $$$over a thousand dollars and worked door to to door with my disability (MS) for Obama, and Rick Warren gets to have dinner at the White house... And, yet Rick Warren will be on the ticket for 2012 as Obama never learns with his Pasters! "Warren is wants power"... Again, gays are 2nd class!!!

Dear President-elect Obama - Who"s next, David Duke for the Supreme Court?
Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population
Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson

Norman LeBoon SR

[PamT]

Since when does a person's frigging sexual preference dictate them holding a spot in a president's cabin?

[DarkYoga]

Hey Pam! It's not a preference, it's our identity and an openly gay person has never served on a president's cabinet. So you present an excellent question! Why has being LGBT for years and years dictated who gets on the cabinet?

[JayJonson]

Thank you for the excellent article. I agree with your positive approach, and I hope that it yields positive results. But I am so disheartened by the cynicism of the invitation to Warren that I really have no faith that Obama stands for anything. I think protests and boycotts may be more effective than lobbying for appointments.

[Spontini]

Obama was always a Rorschach test that allowed everyone to project whatever they wanted onto him. I didn't understand all the fawning and adoration then. Did you not see the same "cynicism" in his use of homophobic gospel singers on his "Embrace the Change" tour through the South during the primaries?

[PamT]

What are you talking about? Let's fawn and adore Bush/Cheney.

[JackNasty]

Democrats attempting to appease the right wing is nothing new and it certainly is not change.

The Clintons spent Bill's two terms as President attempting to appease the right wing. Look where that got them: Ken Starr's $50 million inquisition!

[lisa12345]

Right, they were hideous and we can't let that happen again. I really hope they reform and will work with us, you absolutely could not work with them in the nineties. They were pulling so far right that no matter how center Clinton went, they hated him with a passion. At this point, their extreme-right stance has finally damaged them badly. But may I respectfully add, we made mistakes. By playing in to wedge issues, we wound up being defeated yet again, before real reforms and change in this society could be made.

[JackNasty]

Unfortunately, the current President -elect is playing with the same wedge issues the Clintons did by aiding and abetting anti-gay bigotry. This isn't change. It isn't diplomacy. It isn't reaching out. It's just making the same stupid mistake and expecting different results.

I had hoped for better from an Obama administration. It was the only chance we had given the history of the most popular alternatives. His conservative cabinet appointments have been a huge disappointment. Now this anti-gay pastor debacle.

Obama needs to start reaching out to the people who supported him in the 2008 campaign. If he doesn't, he'll be a one term president.

[AnotherTry]

The oppressed have become the oppressors.

[Piatt]

We in the LGBT community's are not going away. Neither are the fundamentalists. Obama made it clear that he was going to try to unite rather than divide. Given the problems that Bush and Cheney will have left us with, involving Rick Warren in the inaugural doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

The last couple of weeks have really given me pause: the vitriolic, cheap shots at Caroline Kennedy (socialite, dilletante, princess, entitlement queen, J Lo, etc.); the hyperbolic back and forth over Rick Warren (why must the left compare anyone they don't like to Hitler?); and the all the paranoid conspiracy theories from the The Tin Foil Hat Brigades about birth certificates and Blago "pay to play."

God knows, I've been as prone to ranting as the next person with a belief system, but there's a level of mean-spiritedness in all of the above that I'm beginning to find repulsive. America's a big tent. We're never going to agree with one another on everything. Why not try understanding, civility and respect instead of stereotyping and villifying.

It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who worked with LBJ to get the votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Who knows, if we start treating one another decently the political dynamics might change and we may actually be able to clean up some of the messes we're in.

[Jezreel]

Well said, Piatt.

[nkhogan]

Excellent post. Thank you!

[lisa12345]

Excellent post

[lisa12345]

excellent post!

[DarkYoga]

I think there is a good argument for being incredibly angry about Obama's choice of Rick Warren while still believing in creating coalitions. Politics are all about compromise and people must come together and hash out all their disagreements. BUT, it's a big but, the issue with Rick Warren isn't about policy difference like Creationism or Stem Cell research. He actively pursues an agenda that dehumanizes a group of people that has done nothing to him. I think everyone is so used to homophobia that we've grown numb to it. We barely get riled up when Arkansas writes into their constitution that LGBT people can't adopt. Maybe Rick Warren isn't as bad as some of the really horrible homophobes out there but he's still in the same vein, comparing LGBT folks to pedophiles. Why should we put up with this? Someone give me a reason? Are we really that desperate?

[RLForsythe]

Absolutely on the money.

[RLForsythe]

Very simple. This entire issue is solely of Obama's making. And he chose to create the issue. There was no call from the gay community for Obama to choose someone to deliver a prayer in support of gay people, in support of gay marriage or gay rights. None.

He chose an active leader of the Prop 8 forces, someone who equates being gay with incest and beastiality, and who is known for those positions. The fact that Warren supports other commonly perceived "good" causes --- AIDS education, anti-poverty efforts, etc. --- doesn't negate his homophobia.

It strains credulity that Obama and his team --- who ran one of the smartest, savviest campaigns in recent history --- didn't see that selecting homophobe Warren would cause a controversy.

If so, "Why choose Warren?" Answer: Send a message to homophobes that Obama's not THAT liberal. Gays, despite their support, are more easily sacrificed; besides Obama's thinking must go, "Where else are the gays going to go other than on my side, who else are they going to support?"

Obama knew it would cause a stir. He chose to cause the stir. It sends a message to right-of-center people that he's not the leftie they think he is, because, "See, just like you, I don't have that big a problem with homophobes, even if I don't consider myself one, even if I disagree with them." Pretty cynical for a "uniter" guy...political cynicism worthy of ..... George W. Bush.

[siney]

you know, i'm from texas and W was all talk on many issues...for instance, i don't really think he cares one rat's arse about gay marriage, he just opposed it to placate the right...thing is, i truly believe obama DOES oppose gay marriage, he wasn't just saying it to get elected..bitter irony....

[SeanGardner]

Obama helped lead the charge against discrimination of gays in housing and employment in Illinois as a state senator. Moreover, while a state senator, he co-sponsored a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Though the measure became law less than a year after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate).

He has pledged to review close to 1000 federal laws to make sure they are updated to include gays and lesbians. He has hired and vetted a record number of openly gay men and women for his staff.

Obama is not trying to be The President of "True Progressives", or The President of Blue America, or The President of Black America, or The President of Only Democratic Consituencies. Remember, on Nov. 4th, he was elected PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES. The 50 States. RED & BLUE. Secular and Religious. Urban and Rural...he has to represent all of us. And if that means building a "coalition government" to get crucial pieces of legislation through, then what's wrong with that?

[jhoadley]

I completely agree that Obama needs to build a strong coalition, but inviting someone who has been so outspokenly against LGBT people to the table before that person shows any sign of reconsideration of their positions? That ends up seeming like LGBT people are being told that having their voice at the table is less important than his voice.

And to date, we're not at the table. No openly LGBT cabinet positions. Only 1 even high level appointment that is LGBT at the White House Council of Environmental Quality.

Obama is great at reaching across the aisle, but we're asking that he include our community in a serious way, too. So far, that hasn't happened.

[mb32]

How is Nancy Sutley not at the table? She's part of the White House team. I hear and understand the frustration but diminishing her importance and overlooking the progressive views of Rev Lowery is a mistake - IMO. The singular focus on Warren and downplaying Lowery has done more to elevate Warren then what Obama probably intended. I suspect that Obama will even comment on your concerns in his address. The day is supposed to be about unity -bridging the North and the South, so to speak. I know you are hurt and want more. Building a bridge to opposing viewpoints will never be easy. But if you see an opportunity to start building, I think you have to take it even when you know people will not fully understand and will criticize your move. We may not get every thing we want the way we want it, when we want it, but I believe that this new administration will hear and listen to our concerns and try to develop solutions to the best of their ability.

[cminca]

6 million LGBTs worked and voted for him. Now he's building a coalition with somebody who denies our humanity.

Understand our anger?

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Here's why I'm not a big fan of Rickie Warren: Warren called the Terry Schiavo case "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," even though an autopsy of the poor woman showed that she had close to zero brain function because her brain had become liquified. Warren was a huge and vocal supporter of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative. In 2004, he sent letters to 150,000 of his fellow pastors urging them to cast their votes (and implore their flocks to cast their votes) for George W. Bush. He might hold the all-time record for collecting cash at a religious service: $7 million in one Sunday. He has a behemoth Southern California church in the form of Saddleback: 120-acre campus, three-hundred employees, and sixty franchise churches. Pastor Rick is James Dobson-Lite. He's among the most retrograde Southern Baptist Biblical literalists who believes David really did slay Goliath with a slingshot and other children's stories from the Bible. He has ministered to George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Rupert Murdoch -- and now, Barack Obama.

[nikz]

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

[Spontini]

what is not true?

[Fongenie]

I could have sworn Nancy Sutley was openly gay. Y'all are starting to lie now.

[Spontini]

The real shock is that the GLBT community should be surprised by Obama's actions with respect to Warren, as they are reminiscent of the Democratic primary. Obama put together an "Embrace the Change" group to tour the South that included Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer who had disparaged gays and lesbians. When GLBT complaints were raised, Obama's campaign responded with the same "come together" rhetoric. In light of his conduct, it is incredible for Obama to claim he is a "fierce advocate" for GLBT equality. A "fierce advocate" would invite a lesbian minister to deliver the invocation at the inauguration and then tell those on the religious right who objected about "coming together." The sad truth is Obama never was a "new breed" of politician.

[ParaplegicNomad]

You are confusing "fierce advocate" with "ideologue." There absolutely IS a difference between fighting for something and refusing to respect those who disagree with what you are fighting for. This country doesn't just need a "new breed" of politician, it needs a "new breed" of citizenry.

[Spontini]

and this new breed of citizenry you envision, requires the oppressed to embrace their oppressors? no thanks. bigotry doesn't need to be embraced, it needs to be confronted.

[Fongenie]

Preach!

[meazy]

First of all, trying to equate the struggles of the LGBT community to the civil rights movment, is jus disrespectful. Not even close.
With that being said I support equal everything for everybody. Obama is trying to make everyone happy but that will never happen. We have to give this man a chance. He's clearly trying to make America see that we share common interests. We need to step out of our boxes and stop shouting at each other. Only then can we truly have progress.

[ProudLiberalDan]

What's disrespectful is telling gays that they do not have a civil rights movement. We have been beaten, brutalized, repressed and oppressed for centuries of Western Civilization. The Stonewall Riots were only 40 years ago.

The gay civil rights movement may not be the same as the african-american civil rights movement or the women rights movement, but it IS a civil rights movement of its own whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not.

And gays are going to continue pressing for civil rights and equal rights whether or not you find that disrespectful.

This is not a competition to see who had it worse. African-Americans do not own the words "civil rights" to themselves.

[siney]

pray tell, how "can we truly have progress" when you're busy delegitimizing the LGBT civil rights movement and its struggles? struggle & bigotry by any other name is still struggle & bigotry, no? gays have been killed and oppressed for centuries, just like every other group...it's all bad and it's all unacceptable...

[joeinvt]

When is Obama going to "reach out" to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party? Rick Warren, Ray LaHood, Bob Gates...??? Where are the Howard Deans?

[ProudLiberalDan]

Obviously fooled as our new DLC president gets ready to take office.

And don't be fooled by this "new politics" rhetoric. That's just good old fashioned DLC triangulation against the based wrapped in a new package.

[sdrDusty]

What vexes me most is the unwillingness to see parallels with racism.

Would a figure from a church that did not accept black members be asked to participate? or someone who campaigned for segregation?

I'd *like* to see an apology from the Obama team, and a vociferous disowning of Warren's positions. And then real action driven from the Obama executive office towards establishing equal rights.

[meazy]

Are u kidding me? Who exactly is the Obama team apologizing to? And for what? Obama's position on same-sex marriage was expressed during the campaign. U would've caught that if u were paying attention. During the campaign, he also said that he would listen to all points of view whether he agreed with them or not. Warren and Obama do agree on several issues like AIDS awareness and healthcare. I'm no fan of Warren's but let Obama do his thing. He's a smart dude. And by all means, to all my LGBT brothers and sisters, keep fighting for equal rights. Warren ain't big enuff to stop that movement....

[oafishcad]

Obama sure is a good tap dancer! He dances around including a person who is exclusionary in his speech and actions by painting it as inclusion. I doubt he'd include a minister who advocates for white supremacy. I don't see a minister who says women are chattel. Where's the send immigrants all back to where they came from minister? The difference is, it's only gay people who this guy b**ch slapped over prop 8. They'll all fall in line. What choice do they have?

[Cesaria]

He included a minister in Joseph E. Lowery who supports same sex marriage and included gay/lesbian issues in the church/society. How could you have missed that?

[chronic]

Because some folks only hear what the want to hear.


I guess we Dems have our kooks too.

[southwindow]

as he should. had joseph lowery been giving the invocation everyone would be happy. the hardcore evangelicals would have hated obama's guts the same regardless. instead obama went and did a bonehead thing like this. it doesn't matter how many people you put on stage with racist, anti-semite, chauvinist, xenophobe, or homophobe- that person still doesn't belong there. I do not feel the need to be inclusive of such people, who hate others for things they cannot change.

[Busterdawg]

All during the Primaries I keep telling my gay and lesbian friends that Obama was against Gay Marriage, I was told to "hush up" and "he has to say that to win, we know how he really feels".

Ok, so how does he really feel? I say he feels like having Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his Inaugural ceremony. Speaks volumes.

[AnotherTry]

You and I both. I started a youtube channel about it. msbuch72