Rick Warren and the Bad Old Days: They Aren't Over Yet

Let's keep focused on the long term goal. I wish that all the progressive anger about Rick Warren speaking at the Inauguration be focused on shedding light on the actions of last days of the Bush Administration and how to fix its legacy of social and environmental destruction (to find out what's being done to try and fix it, click here). The Warren invite reminds many of the bad old days, when only social conservatives ruled and many of us felt like we had no voice. But it's Obama sending a message to the other half of American, saying, come join us.

The Bush days are over, but change won't happen overnight. I choose to believe Obama asked Warren to speak in order to begin a healing process that ensures we never again endure eight years of such brutally polarized and destructive governance as what we've just been through. The lesson of the unipolar rule of the Bush era is that inclusion and dissent are essential to good governance. When Human Rights Campaign leader Joe Solomonese can take his president elect to task and expect a response, change does happen. Progressives don't have to agree with Obama's every belief or action, nor should they expect to. It's fair to say about the half the country is team Warren, not team Solomonese. But if both the Warrens and the Solomoneses of this world are at the table, and we have eight more years of dialogue, think about where we could be when the Obama Administration is entering its last days.

Instead, we're here: Re-endangering endangered species and women's health. I wish progressives would get half as mad about today's HHS decision to publish "its "conscience rights" rule as they did about Warren. The Bush rule is designed to protect healthcare providers from being denied employment or being fired if they refuse to provide abortions, emergency contraception, or certain forms of birth control because of providers' religious or moral beliefs. What it really does is allow health care providers to control women's options. I don't know what Warren thinks of the rule. I'd like to hear it.

Deborah Kotz at USA Today continues, "200,000 Planned Parenthood members filed comments against the rule, organization Vice President Laurie Rubiner tells me. One of the concerns raised--including by me--was whether patients would even be informed of their doctor's refusal to administer certain procedures or if they would simply be kept in the dark about their options."

Instead, Bush Adminstration officials today issued no legal requirement for a health care provider to have any kind of conversation with a patient about the provider's views. "While current law already protects the religious beliefs of health care providers and professionals, the Bush Administration's Health and Human Services issued a 'refusal clause' rule today that is so broad it could limit women's access to comprehensive health care and other services."

In the words of RH Reality Check, the rule "expand[s] the definition of health care providers protected by provider conscience regulation and allow dissenting providers to refuse to refer patients for treatment in addition to refusing treatment itself."

An early, leaked draft version of the regulation specifically suggested that providers who consider hormonal birth control to be an abortifacient should not have to prescribe it or refer patients for its prescription. The regulation relied on arcane, non-medical definitions of pregnancy to suggest that the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilization is valid and that, a hormonal contraceptive, which anti-choicers claim block implantation of a fertilized egg, is tantamount to abortion. The second, released draft, now published, does not conflate contraception with abortion, but in its broad scope nonetheless provides protections for providers who would like to do just that. "The regulation confirms what we feared," says Marilyn Keefe of the National Partnership for Women & Families. "HHS refused to allay any of the concerns raised in earlier iterations. Contraception clearly remains a target."

This is a last, radical step from Bush, Leavitt, et al. The vast majority of Americans favor access to contraception. A little less than half believes life begins at conception, a Warren view. A little less than half believe gays should be allowed to marry, but three-quarters believe in domestic partnership rights for homosexuals. Asking Warren to offer the invocation is an olive branch to half of America. There has to be room for most of us under Obama's new tent.

Follow Morra Aarons-Mele on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morra_am

Comments

[LynnW49]

"Let's keep focused on the long term goal. I wish that all the progressive anger about Rick Warren speaking at the Inauguration be focused on shedding light on the actions of last days of the Bush Administration. . ."

What Morra and so many others forget is that outrage over gay rights is at such a pitch because no one else has stood up for them, or at least damn few, over generations of politics. For generations gays have chosen NOT to be one-issue voters (unlike evangelicals) and have been a force in progressive politics. While gays have set aside their own interests and promoted, supported, worked for, and voted for progressive candidates and issues, straight and African-American progressives have stood idly by when gay civil rights were at stake. Where were these people in 1969 during the Stonbewall uprising? Where were these people when gays were beaten and murdered for being gay? Where were these peple when DOMA was passed, and when Clinton caved on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? If there is gay outrage now, and outrage on the part of the latecomers to the issue, it is because for an American century they have looked behind them to see who "had their back" and NO ONE else was there. Don't ever say that the folks upset at Warren have not been there for YOUR issues. They have. And they've never been rewarded or ackowledged for it.

[20shadesofviolet]

You are kidding yourself if you think the Rick Warrens of the world will negotiate their positions on contraception, abortion or gay rights. They are absolutists and it's their way or the highway. Giving Rick Warren a place at the inauguration simply lends credibility to the Christian Right's arguments. There is no middle grand for these people. I am very disappointed by his selection. I never thought of Obama as a progressive, yet supported him anyway. However, I did think they were smarter than this. This is a blow to woman's reproductive rights, as well as, gay rights.

[Sioen]

What you miss here is that this isn't only about gay marriage. This is about dangerous bigotry and the gay Americans who will be beaten or killed because of this choice.

Rick Warren says that gays are unnatural and don't deserve full human rights (in Uganda in march of this year, for just one example). That dehumanizing language leads directly to beatings and killings.

You do not reach out a hand to walk together with brutality and violence -- you denounce it and say it is not acceptable in a civilized society.

Rick Warren is welcome to the table as long as he does not try to claim that some people are less than human. We tried that with Jews, blacks, women, etc. -- and it only leads to death.

Obama needs to tell America that is NOT acceptable to say that ANY group of people is less human than any other.

Rick Warren is wrong t-shirt:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sioenroux/3123031642/

[LynnW49]

Well said. Thank you.

[antaeus]

"The vast majority of Americans favor access to contraception. A little less than half believes life begins at conception, a Warren view. A little less than half believe gays should be allowed to marry, but three-quarters believe in domestic partnership rights for homosexuals."

Your recitation of these opinion snapshots continue to flog the false argument that this whole uproar is about difference of opinion. It's not. It's about Warren. If Obama wanted, as you see it, to send an "olive branch," then he could have chosen another pastor who holds identical views but who had not just last month participated in a secular political campaign to strip gays of a court-granted right.

Your entire essay misses the point.

[clevelandchick]

Morra,

Gay people, especially women, have been just as vocal and involved in the fight against the religious right's attack on women's reproductive freedom and their contention that their faith allows them to harm others, as they have for their own civil rights. Implying that they haven't just isn't true.

Warren's words and actions against the gay community and women's health are unforgivable. Warren is in league with some of the worst anti-gay leaders on our planet:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/rick_warren_moderate_1.html

The religious right needs to be marginalized, not lionized. They need to be told their views on women's health and homosexuality are archaic, inhumane and UNACCEPTABLE.

Today the American people would never accept an administration who held out an olive branch to the KKK for their views on race, why the hell should they accept outreach to a man or group with similar prejudices based on gender and orientation? There is just no spinning Warren's role in this inauguration as a gesture of unity when it rewards a man and a group of people for their hate.

[Jaidit]

Reproductive rights are important, but so are my civil rights. I am not putting my struggle on hold for anyone. Yes, reproductive rights are a LGBT issue. So is marriage.

I have been fighting for reproductive rights. I spoke at a No on 4 and 8 rally and equated the two. I have done my part and continue to work to preserve reproductive rights in this nation.

I call on Morra Aarons-Mele to join the fight for marriage equality and to fight for the day when someone like Rick Warren is inadmissible in public discourse because of his bigoted repressive views about both gay people and reproductive rights.

Rick Warren is against abortion too.

I am as offended by his comparison of abortion to the holocaust as I am at his comparison of same-sex couples to pedophiles.

We cannot lay down our fight to fight yours because they are the same fight. You're just not holding up your part of the struggle.

[AHMatron]

I am sympathetic. I think that civil rights should be universal and that if you want to get married, go for it. I also think, however, that too many in the gay rights movement have become ONE ISSUE VOTERS. If that's who you are and nothing else matters to you, you will continue to be marginalized. It's a big, broad world out there. You've got to get out of you self imposed ghetto and start talking to more straight people. And not just about what matter to YOU.

[Dave01]

You have made a BOGUS argument. You clearly don't understand the civil rights struggle for the gay community. This is not just about marriage, it is also about reproductive rights. In addition this is an economic issue. We are tired of subsidizing YOUR family. My partner and I pay $8000 a year MORE in income taxes than our heterosexual counterparts becuase we are FORCED to file single. Do you understand how that $8000 could help? That $8000 is nearly 5 months of mortgage payments, which would leave us a little left over to purchase something a little extra for our 3 children (2 daughters and 1 son). We could also choose to donate (which we already do) some of that to organizations such as planned parenthood, world wildlife foundation, HIV/AIDS organizations, etc.

There is much more at issue than just what matters to us. And your marginalizing us of needing to "get out of our 'self-imposed gheto'" is insulting. Our "ghettos" typically have higher home values than yours. When we move into "your" neighborhoods, YOUR home values go up because we actually FIX our homes up and take care of our stuff. Dont believe me? Check out the highest income and property values of San Diego Central. You will find it is Hillcrest. Who do you think owns the majority of properties in Hillcrest? You got it. GAYS!

[noelalumit]

What angers me about this article is that is asks gays and lesbians, yet again, to take a back seat because other parts of America are important, too. What she fails to recognize is that there are gays and lesbians who have fought for other issues--like those by Planned Parenthood. Gay men and lesbians are part of the deep thread of American progressive issues. When will those groups that we've helped finally want to help us?

[JimR]

No one is asking you "to take a back seat." No one is "throwing you under the bus." I think what a lot of us ARE asking, though, is to keep your eyes focused on the real fight, not go ballistic over a 3-minute invocation that everyone will forget the next day.

[toypiano]

I disagree, I think O is telling progressives to get to the back of the bus. Understand that this IS the "real fight." O has sold out his integrity to pander to the evangelicals, and in the process valuing or honoring bigotry over the civil rights of many Americans, gay and straight. Denying the civil rights of any group is an injustice to us all.

[peterg76]

"Inclusiveness" really seems like a stretch. Maybe Obama wants Warren to owe him a favour, and he wil collect on it at a suitable time?

[easydoesitcat]

Here's what I did as my protest to Obama's unfortunate selection of Warren:

I'm a registered Democrat (at least, I was). I notified the DNC that I was changing my party from Democrat to Independent, and the reason was because of Obama's selection of Warren for the inauguration. I then downloaded a registration form from my state's online voter registration - changed parties on the form - and mailed it. This may not be dramatic, but if enough of us do this, we'll certainly be counted.

[Artemis34]

Support organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign. Your positive actions in their support will be appreciated.

[hereinmiami]

the point is that solomonese is NOT at the table. if obama was really doing this to bring people together, then why not ALSO have a gay rights figure involved. I would LOVE to see rick warren do a prayer alongside gene robinson. or mel white. Yes, Joseph Lowery is pro-gay, but barely anyone knows that about him; that's not why he was invited. And you know it really irritates me that the writer assumes people who're not happy with this appointment only care about this issue; queer activists are more than capable of fighting multiple battles at once, thanks, and many of us do.

[Chavie]

How do you know that noone knows he's pro-gay? I did. I've heard him speak.

[clevelandchick]

Warren is anything but pro-gay:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/rick_warren_moderate_1.html

[anney]

The lesson of the unipolar rule of the Bush era is that inclusion and dissent are essential to good governance.

=====

Morra

Good governance may require inclusion and dissent, but only as long as the inclusion folds in dissenters into your own goals and inclusion does not further their conflicting goals. And dissent is fine as long as it doesn't drive the current "governance" to act against America's best interests.

Now, that said, is it not possible for the new Congress to remove the "conscience clause" from Bush's regulation? Or for Obama to wipe it out with an Executive Order that would restore the original standards? Bush may be trying to govern past the inauguration date by pulling these stunts, but I am sure there are ways to undo the damage, either presidentially or legislatively.

[donnaxx]

Is Obama also considered homophobic now?

[11907281]

No, but his judgment is being called into question.

[XME]

Would you question his judgement if he said he was against allowing polygamists to mary multiple women if they were all adults, or is OK to be against that group of people?

[JackNasty]

So, protesting Obama's selection of a bigot/preacher who spread malicious lies about gay people in a political camapaighn to repeal their right to marry is just a distraction?

I'm getting sick and tired of so-called friends like Morra Aarons-Mele who trivialize our fight for equal protection under the law.

[catuskoti]

hear, hear!!

I'm betting the people who think the Warren debacle is trivial haven't recently had their families outlawed.

[burndtdan]

lets say you get warren thrown out of the inauguration.

who will have more rights because of it? i know one man who will have been told he has no place taking part in his own government, so i know one man who will have, at least symbolically, lost rights. but who will have gained them?

rick warren has heinous opinions, but ultimately all he has is his one vote, and his free speech. which of those two things would you take away from him?

i'd suggest you'd find more success spending this energy you use on being hateful back at him, and instead spend it doing what he did in the first place... go out and convince people of your side of things. go out and win votes for your cause.

[clevelandchick]

Rick Warren has more than 'one vote', he has the ear of millions of his parishioners as the head of the largest evangelical church in our nation.

What getting Warren taken off the inaugural bench would do is send a message to him and all of the other bigots out there like him, that their views on homosexuals and women's rights are unacceptable in our society.

Obama should be leading by example and expressing that message but by having Warren give his invocation he implies that Warren's views on gay and women's rights are acceptable.

[11907281]

Do you think picking Warren will diminish or embolden the "culture war"? It was because of the culture war that the issues you bring up have been pushed through and I think picking warren tells the theocrats that O is open to legislating with the gospels. You seem to blame the people for not focusing on this and give your peers, the media, a pass. Don't forget warren also advocated the assassination of Iran's leader, ask the troops in Iraq what that would mean for them. Should O ask the phelps family to speak at Arlington? Where is the line drawn when it comes to inviting prejudiced people in the tent?

[loper2008]

So true. Bush did a bad bad thing and nobody cares. This could affect millions of women's ability to get birth control. Rick Warren is a distraction.

[Artemis34]

Bush's bad acts never get enough press in my opinion. And this one could use some more that is for sure.

Sorry to say we've become callous to Bush's evil. Hardly even a blip on the radar screen anymore.

Warren is anti-choice, so what does his inclusion signal? Maybe it will be tougher to reverse these rules than we may have hoped? Maybe we will see more insensitivity to choice advocates and feminists as well as to gay civil rights advocates?

Think people were just hoping for better than Warren.

[Jaidit]

There isn't enough ink to cover all of Bush's bad acts. The press finally woke up and started giving us the highlights, but even the 24-hour cable news stations have more than they can deal with.