Obama, Warren and Civil Society

This article originally appeared in theWashington Times and at Pundits.thehill.com on Monday, December 22nd.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Full disclosure of my position on gay rights and gay marriage: I support both, strongly. I strongly disagree with anyone who would deprive an American citizen of full and equal rights, regardless of sexual preference, and I would vote in favor, if I could, of all 50 states allowing same-sex marriages. There are enough divorces and loveless marriages in this country. If there are love relationships that want a marriage certificate, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex, I am strongly in favor of that.

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., has views on gays and gay marriage that are the extreme opposite from mine. Even more uncomfortable for me, Pastor Warren would impose his views on others -- for example, by supporting Proposition 8 in California, passed by a small majority of Californians last November, which would ban gay marriage in California.

Recently, he seemed to go further - in the same sentence, he mentioned his opposition to gay marriage as well as "having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage ... [and] an older guy marrying a child."

That sentence was insensitive, hurtful and unfortunate. But the fact is, it has been misrepresented by gay rights critics that the pastor compared gay marriage with incest and pedophilia.

That misleading charge spread rapidly across the Internet. As the words quoted above show, Pastor Warren was referring to -- not to the criminal and widely recognized heinous sexual wrongdoing of incest and pedophilia. The critics of Pastor Warren who misrepresent what he actually said do their cause no good.

But to the issue at hand: My hats off to President-elect Barack Obama for inviting Pastor Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20 -- and the same to Pastor Warren for accepting the invitation. Both of them are now subject to attacks for the invitation, the offer and acceptance, from their respective purist bases on the left and right.

My view: Standing up to their bases and holding to the view that a civil society must allow for disagreement and debate without demonization is important. No, not just important: After the last couple of decades of cancerous "gotcha" politics of personal destruction, it is vital to our future.

Regarding the president-elect, Mr. Obama has proven to me over a long period of time, even more so in the weeks since the election, that he is a man who says what he means and means what he says. Mr. Obama has shown himself to be a progressive Democrat who is sometimes prepared to take positions that counter the views of his most purist base - that is, when he is moved by conviction to do so. This is the definition of political courage made most famous by then-Sen. John F. Kennedy when he authored "Profiles in Courage."

More important to me, Mr. Obama has steadfastly lived up to his promises from the beginning of his campaign and just recently repeated when he explained his selection of Pastor Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation:

"It is important for Americans to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues ... . That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about; that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we ... can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

And Pastor Warren, despite his sincere, religiously based convictions that same-sex relations and marriage are morally wrong, has contributed millions to gays and other people suffering from AIDS and other causes helping the poor and the suffering. He is a good and decent man. And on this occasion in particular, he too has shown the courage to stand up to his base -- by participating in (and thus blessing) the inauguration of a pro-choice, pro-stem-cell-research, pro-gay-rights president, to the consternation and displeasure of many religious-right conservatives.

Closing the ceremony will be the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, a legendary partner and colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King as a leader in the civil rights and equal rights movements, with whom Pastor Warren and many religious conservatives also strongly disagree.

And then, I hope that those in the crowd from the gay rights community who were understandably disappointed by the choice of Pastor Warren, and those from the religious right understandably disappointed by Pastor Warren's acceptance of the invitation, will be joining hands -- physically and spiritually -- in celebrating this historic inauguration.

When this happens, our new president will have taken the first and important steps of bringing us together into a new civil society. He will have done what former President Clinton wished could have been done when he said, in a June 2004 White House ceremony unveiling his and former first lady Hillary Clinton's official portraits:

"You know, most of the people I've known in this business, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, were good people, honest people, and they did what they thought was right. And I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad."

That is the essence of the civil society in the new era of Barack Obama as our 44th president of the United States.

Lanny Davis, a Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, served as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from 2006 to 2007. He is the author of Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America.

Comments

[oldbrit]

I agree with Richard Cohen. He wrote in his column on Tuesday, "… the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader."

I'm totally in favor of reaching out to everyone throughout the U. S. and the world, but giving Rick Warren a place of honor at the inauguration is not required to reach out and open a dialog.

The inauguration is supposed to be for everyone and Rick Warren is a political activist working to deny some Americans the same civil and human rights that he and Obama both enjoy.

This is why I supported Joe Biden for president. Mr. Biden says, "I'll work across the aisle, but I won't compromise core principles to do it"

If we compromise core principles for unity, what we gain won't be worth having.

[Schaz]

The Hill's version of the article has the missing word for that sentence: "As the words quoted above show, Pastor Warren was referring to marriage — not to the criminal and widely recognized heinous sexual wrongdoing of incest and pedophilia."

The writer is quibbling. When Rick Warren said, "I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.", he was saying that we cannot change something that is wrong into something that is right by calling it marriage, and he was clearly comparing the relationships between those of the same gender to relationships of incest, pedophilia, and polygamy.

[BobbyJoe]

Yeah, here we go with the parsing again. Excuse me, but if Warren were, for example, to say the following: "There are three pieces of writing I think should be banned: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and Lanny Davis' Huffington Post column today," then, technically, yes, you could parse it in a (ridiculous IMHO) way and say he wasn't making a DIRECT comparison between your work and two grossly offensive pieces. But that would be pretty much the definition of "disingenuous," and would fully hinge on the narrowest reading of the word "direct" (would it also depend on what your definition of "is" is?)

Same thing with Warren's links between incest, pedophilia (i.e., "child marriage") and same-sex marriage. The eternal justifying parsers seem to feel that unless Warren says word-for-word in the most absolute form "I think same-sex marriage is 100% exactly the same as incest and pedophilia," he's not offensively implying a connection. I think readers of above the age of five or six years old, though, can read Warren's statements where he tosses same-sex marriage in with a bunch of loaded and offensive images, and understand exactly what he's implying.

[mcthfg]

Nixon had friends who were Jews - have you heard the tapes?

The fact is that the bible says "man shall not lay with man." The bible is the WORD OF GOD. It's never wrong. So Rick Warren is either full of crap, or he's lying to you and me.

Being as religion's record of lying is, well, 100%, I would say you don't what the hell you're talking about. Your feel-good words are belittled by 2 thousand years of christian killing everyone not like them, gays and lesbians included. And Jews. And Muslims.

A good man - a good man gives away his money, like the bible says. How much money does Warren have?

It mus feel crappy to be taken by a con man.

[trueobsupporter]

Finally - The voice of reason.

[YellerDawg]

"That misleading charge spread rapidly across the Internet. As the words quoted above show, Pastor Warren was referring to -- not to the criminal and widely recognized heinous sexual wrongdoing of incest and pedophilia. The critics of Pastor Warren who misrepresent what he actually said do their cause no good."
Is something missing from this paragraph? What exactly was Pastor Warren referring to?

[thebigbike]

Easy for you to say.... it's not YOUR marriage being compared to incest........ it's not YOUR marriage that is under attack and possible nullification...