Should Progressives Engage Agents of Intolerance?

Many progressives are disappointed that Obama chose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. The bestselling evangelical pastor worked hard to support Prop 8 and has equated letting gays marry with blessing incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Obama's defense is that we should engage those who disagree with us. But some people are beyond engagement, and Warren would not get a pass if he made the same comments, say, about interracial unions like that of Obama's parents.

Evaluating the Warren choice hinges, to an extent, on whether Warren should be deemed beyond the pale, and given how split the nation is on gay marriage, and Obama's own opposition to marriage equality, it seems fair to say that Warren is hardly an extremist who deserves to be dismissed for his views on homosexuality. Still that leaves the question of whether the inauguration of a president who campaigned on unity is the right place to honor such a divisive figure.

But the bigger question is this: how should progressives -- who are as confident that homosexuality is morally right as many evangelicals are that it's wrong -- respond to those who disagree with us? What should gays and lesbians say to those at our dinner tables who insist they are not prejudiced even as they work to limit our rights? Is dismissing them as bigots the answer?

First, let's get some things straight. Reason, for what it's worth, is on the side of gay marriage. The most common retort to gay marriage advocates is Warren's famous slippery-slope argument that says if gays can marry, why not siblings, children and groups? But if the best reason to oppose gay marriage is that you actually oppose something worse, that's not an argument against gay marriage, but an argument against that other thing you oppose (and not a very strong one). Resorting to the slippery slope reveals something scary for the anti-gay-marriage folks: they not only have no reason why they're against gay marriage; they have no reason why they're for marriage at all -- if they did, they could rationally explain what marriage is for, and why gay unions don't fit.

Of course some try. They cite the bible's proscriptions against homosexuality but they don't seem to care that the same bible condemns divorce, which they don't seek to ban (and celebrates polygamy). They say marriage is about procreation and gay unions don't produce children; yet they'd let infertile and childless couples wed, so long as they're straight.  They say Americans don't want gay marriage, but what a group of people wants or doesn't want doesn't always make it right -- that's why we have a Constitution that's designed to limit the tyranny of the majority. And they say that something 5000 years old shouldn't be changed; but slavery was that old and was eventually deemed wrong, and besides marriage has never stayed the same but has changed since it began. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, it is grotesque to say a law should remain in effect for no reason other than that it was so laid down during the time of Henry IV.

The reason opponents of gay marriage can sound so much like bigots is that their arguments generally come down to saying marriage should remain exclusionary because marriage has always been exclusionary.  It looks to many like they are papering over emotional resistance with rationalizations, and this is the very definition of prejudice.

Indeed, if there is a rational argument against gay marriage, I have yet to see it. And this is why Obama's invitation to Warren might just work. A major limitation to progressive thinking is our over-reliance on rational debate. Despite our instincts to bullet-point the reasons why opponents of gay rights are wrong, rational debate is not generally what creates change. As Hilary Rosen recently wrote on this blog, "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." And to touch people, we need to share our stories with people who are in the same proverbial room. We might not even need to debate them, just show them who we are.

While the analogy between the personal setting of homes or workplaces and the political stage of an inauguration is imperfect, it's possible that the principle of engagement is, for a time, worth trying. After all, liberals are all about engagement when it comes to the international stage -- why not do the same with our fellow Americans?

Let me be clear: I was distressed by the Warren pick. It looks like a political calculation designed to win over agents of intolerance even if that means kicking in the stomach those Americans Obama promised to represent, and undermining the principles of unity and tolerance he claims to embody. Tolerance simply doesn't extend to tolerating intolerance. And so the inauguration was probably not the place to invite someone who uses religion to justify intolerance and division.

But it's done. Progressives should use the episode as a teachable moment: to remind ourselves that engagement is a principle we embrace, that reason only gets you so far in this world, and that to show--rather than tell--America why our principles are the right ones and the necessary ones, requires that all people of good faith be seated at the table. Whether Rick Warren is one of those people God only knows.

Comments

[JimG56]

All these comments about morality, tolerance, etc. seem to be out of place. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia found that marriage is a fundamental civil right, and that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that right to everybody regardless of race. (Some say that because the word "marriage" is not in the Constitution, marriage is not a civil rights issue. But in the United States, the Supreme Court decides what"s constitutional, and the court does that through case law. In Loving v. Virginia, the court stated clearly that marriage is a personal right.) Now, Loving v. Virginia said nothing about equal protection for gays and lesbians. But the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that equal protection for marriage applies to gays and lesbians. Proposition 8 did nothing to change that, and I believe it will be struck down for exactly that reason. Eventually, I believe that that the US Supreme Court will find that equal protection in the civil right of marriage applies to gays and lesbians. If the court is forced to take the issue head-on, it could only deny that right if justices find that there is an overwhelming harm to society by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Some will say that there is such a harm. I don"t think it can be proven. Anyway, it's clearly about individual rights, personal rights -- civil rights. Morality has no bearing on the subject

[rdgamble]

"Indeed, if there is a rational argument against gay marriage, I have yet to see it."
Gender is a reality.
"Marriage" has always been the union of individuals of opposite gender (including polygamy and polyandry, which we don't allow in this country.) See dictionaries as well as all human cultures.
A few years ago, there was an attempt to pass The Equal Rights Amendment, but it failed because, as a nation, we didn't want to deny the reality of gender differences. The solution has been to legislate against discrimination where gender doesn't make a difference, as in most employment, but allowing the army to have a policy of not sending females into combat.
The union of individuals of the same sex is fine, but the gender element makes it something different from "marriage".
So far, when the public can vote, it has said that gender is a reality that should not be denied. Development should be through civil unions.

[JimG56]

Why doesn't Barack Obama understand that gay marriage is a civil rights issue? It's not a social problem that can be solved by people on all sides coming together in harmony. Either the courts grant this civil right to gays and lesbians or they don't. There's no common ground to find. Marriage has been labeled a civil right by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. State of Virginia. That case also stated that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guaranteed marriage for all regardless of race. Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that marriage is a civil right that is subject to equal protection. And, the California court stated that gays and lesbians cannot be denied the same right to marry as everybody else -- because of equal protection.

There can be no common ground such as instituting marriage for straights and civil unions for gays and lesbians; that's very similar to "separate but equal". We can't have two-tiered marriage for straights and gays. This will not end until all have equal protection under laws allowing the civil right of marriage for everybody.

Read more at http://jgogek.wordpress.com.

[JimR]

Actually, Warren did not work very hard at all in support of Prop 8:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354114/

[mcthfg]

You don't have to work very hard when you've got an army of non-thinking xians to do your bidding. Use your head, Jim.

Bush didn't work very hard, either, but he managed to ruin the government and get us into 2 wars.

[EricLightborn]

I want to clear, too.

I wasn't distressed about the Warren pick because I saw the polls showing evangelical white Americans siding with Obama higher than with Bush of 00' or 04'. News flash for America: This could be the first bipartisan President in our lifetimes! Think about it. Someone who talks like me (unity, compromise) but actually means when the cameras are on! If it's not a big fantasy then we might not destroy ourselves yet.

Like he says: "Hope."

[progpro1]

Never underestimate the power of shunning and shaming. All healthy open societies do it to individuals or subgroups who preach hatred, violence and intolerance. Of course it is often abused as well. But the issue here is simply this - is there any "line in the sand" that Obama will not cross when it comes to "inclusion"? I think the answer is obvious - he would not choose a preacher who publicly advocated against inter-racial marriage or marriage between a Jew and a Gentile. That is a fact that no can rightfully dispute. There can be only one logical conclusion - Obama at the very least is being hypocritical in choosing Warren. Why? One answer is that he himself has unconscious homophobia or at least homo-ignorance and so he does not see the blatant contradiction. Another is simply cold political calculation - he is already thinking about 012 and retaining - if not growing - his support from "centrist wing" of the christian right. He may be calculating that he will gain more votes from them than the inevitable lost votes from gays. Obama should know that sometimes you must as a political leader, advocate for shunning when a person or group advocates a position that is so far out of line with the values of a healthy society, that they MUST BE SHUNNED. By inviting Warren, he is tacitly acknowledging that Warren's beliefs are not so inherently dangerous or just plain morally wrong. And that says a lot -

[Davwbaird]

How did we get to where we are? I will tell you, by sitting at the table with those whose minds needed changing.

Nathaniel Frank has it right. Progress comes from being able to see each other as just like us. Admitted some folks will not be able to change, some will, Honest folks comfortable with themselves, are more open to reason, to change, that has been my experience.

Look to the founders of our movement. We had workshops with straights letting them in on ourselves. I participated in the first two conducted at Glide Church in San Francisco in 1968/1969. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons promoted the events. Harry Hay and John Burnside were there as well. I went on and facilitated four more in Seattle and Detroit. Attitudes were changed, disbelief was suspended. We had groups and visited homes. This sensation was not new but for the gay community it was. It worked and it changed so many of us. Self-esteem and acceptance of ourselves happened and lives were changed. I have lived my life since age 23 out of the closet and have experienced job loss, community acceptance and affirmation. I was even a born again something or other.
Dave Baird, Tumwater

[Heru1]

You paint with too broad a brush when u say progressives are convinced homosexuality is moral. I think many progressives see this as a legal, not moral, issue. The equal protection argument is enough; I don't have to see your sexual preference as either moral or immoral.

[JohnJames]

The question of morality doesn't even make the least bit of sense unless it's premised with the absurd notion that sexual orientation is a choice. There can be no question of morality without choice. On the other hand, treating people differently because of characteristics over which none of us have control IS immoral. Are you listening, evangelicals?

[VikingKing]

Nathaniel,

Perhaps this material is what you have been looking for?

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/the-slippery-slope-of-same-sex-marriage/

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/more-perspective-on-gay-marriage/

"What"s at risk in this fight is not the civil rights of homosexuals. What"s at risk is religious freedom for every American. That and the not-so-small problem of undermining what has been for centuries the very foundation of society."

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/why-are-lgbt-people-so-hacked-with-christians/

[TheBlackCat]

People will fight against gay marriage so long as they think it is a choice. I don't understand this reasoning, because I never chose to be straight. I never looked at a woman, developed feelings for her, and had to "resist." I only am attracted to men. I can't control who I am attracted to. I don't understand why they think homosexuals have an ability that no one else has, controlling who they love.

Because they ARE right about one thing. I hear/read all the time conservatives saying "Legalizing gay marriage will send the messege to children that there's nothing wrong with being gay." Well, that much is true. We DO want kids to know that it's okay to be gay, so that kids can be openly gay in high school without getting ostracized, bullied, and beaten.

But so long as people think homosexuality is a choice, they think their kids can "fall prey" to it. They don't accept that their kid would or would not have been gay no matter what, and the only thing that changes with homosexuality being accepted by society is that now the kid can be honest about who he is and walk the halls of school without fear.

[SteveDenver]

I read an excellent post on a gay blog regarding an unrelated matter, but it rings true here:

"Being heterosexual isn't better, it's just more common."

[Davwbaird]

The Black Cat a famous gay bar where Jose reign in the 50' and 60's San Francisco

[TScheisskopf]

To my gay brothers and sisters:

As a breeder, some might say my comments might not carry sufficient weight in this matter. But still, I am compelled to comment.

You WILL win this battle. History shows that groups like yours always do. Sometimes not soon enough, but you will win. You are determined and you will not let your voices be stilled.

On the other hand, Rick Warren will be giving his invocation to a bunch of near-terminally frozen people and those watching on TV who will be counting the femtoseconds until he is done with his droning. His words will be reliably vague, full of boilerplate nostrums and will be forgotten in nothing flat, for they will be reliably unimportant, unless he gets up there, loses his mind, and ends up being dragged off the platform by the Secret Service. Which would make for some damn entertaining television.

After all, besides Billy Graham, who used to own that invocation position, name 5 ministers who have given invocations in the past...that's what I thought. Warren will be a lost footnote on some dusty history document.

But you will win. That is a given.

[ChrisBabick]

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts.

[castrochavez08]

This article goes to the main debate point on this whole issue.

Is it right to be inclusive of one who is opposed to inclusiveness?

I have heard so many people (mostly Obama fans) use this point of Obama being inclusive and being brave or gutsy for doing so.
This point would sure make sense if Obama had ONCE reached out to a left wing person with this courageous inclusive doctrine.

Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore or Howard Dean could all be considered far left.....or at least left of the middle to a degree comparable to Rick Warren on the right.
But the issue here is not just Rick Warren. Obama has pro war guy Rahm Emanuel as his right hand man, kept Robert Gates (Bush guy) to head our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, took agri-business insider Tom Vilsack to oversee our food supply and has a war on drugs believer Eric Holder set to be our AG.

Reach out and be inclusive? Sure why not? When does Obama reach left?

[JohnFromCensornati]

When he needed the votes.

[socaldude]

Actually, he did reach out to Howard Dean. He based his campaign on Deans model. It was probably missed by the MSM because it's hardly newsworthy.
On the one hand, Obama risks legitmizing Warrens' bigoted view. On the other hand, if this strategy works, much might be gained. Little to lose, much to gain, worth the risk from a tactical point of view.

[FearlessFreep]

It's odd that Obama's "inclusive" cabinet has no room for Dean.

[JimR]

He has selected the Rev. Lowery, a supporter of gay rights, to deliver the benediction. Funny how you don't mention that.

[david43a]

Rev. Lowery is a good man, one of those who makes me proud to be an american.
Rick Warren is nowhere near him, and stands in opposition to most of what rev. Lowery
professes
Thus the loud cries of betrayal! There are many folks like Lowery, why not pick them?

[FTP]

I just want all my friends and Brothers and sisters " To know " I do not fear if you greet me with " What you are celebrating at the time " In fact " I am honored " You respected me enough " To greet me and invite me into your world " Only a fool or Idiot " Would not welcome a gift from his brother " or sister " for all have come from Adam.
So to all my Brothers and sisters across this world " May you have a Happy and good Holiday or worship or celebrations " May I just mention a few?
Happy Muslim Eid "Or - Which ever Holiday or worship is at the time.
Happy Hinduism Tirukkura - Or - Which ever Holiday or worship is at the time.
Happy Chinese Laba Festival - Or - Which ever Holiday or worship is at the time.
Happy Jewish Rosh Hashanah - Or - Which ever Holiday or worship is at the time.
Happy Christian Easter - Or - Which ever Holiday or worship is at the time.
And to all " I did not mention " May all your Holidays and worship and celebrations- Be Happy and Good as well.

[tbone99]

I am not gay , so forgive what may not be none of my business.I probably lack crucial sensitivity. So teach me, not too harshly please.

We know that civil rights for other minorties was obtained over the years with non violent marches, sitting at the counters, boycotts etc.. In truth it was obtained because the LIE of American equality for all was unmasked to the world.

I think the unmasking of the myth of so called Christian love needs to take place. How to do so is the question.
It has been helpful in the past to bring to light the snarling dog upon the unarmed marcher, the attack on innocent children in order to win over the apathetic. I'm sure many people in America fit this categry.

I think if gays did the equivalent of a hundreds of lunch counter sit -ins ,it might affect those who think it does't affect them . Make sure when you volunteeer in the community people knw you are gay or have a same sex partner. If Sunday after Sunday gays showed up, joined coffee klatches and volunteered for things, the rude remarks and contempt shown by haters will be unmasked to the apathetic.

yes, it would require investing time in a institution you may have no interest in. It would require weatherin insults and rude remarks, possibly worse. But do you really think that many blacks really wanted a grilled cheese sandwich.?

[JohnFromCensornati]

The problem is not nasty remarks and contempt. The problem is that these people want to legislate their beliefs. I volunteer my Sunday mornings at a non-religious organization and that isn't going to change. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did volunteer at a church. What good would that do? Although their preachers use dehumanizing and alienating language, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think most believers already realize that we are human. We're also "sinners". So, I could volunteer and some of them might come to think of me as a nice "sinner". Not a gay person, they don't exist. God says I'm a "sinner". OK. What have I accomplished? Black people *did* want to eat at restaurants. I have no interest in attending a church.

[mrsdonrod]

But, you're wrong, John- really. I am a concervative Christian (gasp!) who is reading these blogs to be more educated on both sides of the issues, as well. Initially, without even reading about it or thinking much about it, I was sure I would vote FOR prop 8- that's what I was supposed to do, right? My nephew, who I love dearly, is gay. He and his partner, who I also love dearly, sent me very compelling emails before the election. I hadn't really connected the "Issue" with any real person before those emails. Having a face of people i really love and respect to put with what had been to me an inpersonal "issue" really opened my eyes. I have been researching and reading ever since then and really trying to understand the "gay perspective." It makes it hard, because I read these blogs trying to get educated and be tolerant and people are referring to me as irrational, a hater, intolerant, an idiot, mindless, and more. I feel like I have to wade through an ocean of hatred and intolerance pointed at me in order to try to find some common ground I can meet people on. I'm sure you feel the same way. Maybe if BOTH sides could try to eliminate hateful and intolerant language from their vocabulary, people like me could put more and more faces with the issue and care more and more- then change would be easier, don't you think?

[smithshaw08]

Good points. I thought it might be a good idea for a large LGBT group to attend a Sunday service at Warren's Saddleback church. And sit peacefully right up front! Or help them with a food drive. It makes a statement & brings the human side to their eyes. For thousands of years religion has evolved & wars have been waged. Egyptians believed in the afterlife & multiple Gods. And they built wicked cool pyramids. It's problematic when different groups of religion all believe that only they have all the answers.

[david43a]

You seem to have an open mind and a good one at that! I appreciate this to no end!
I am sick over this invitation, I and many of my fellow GLBT's have done what you suggest, at a high cost as you noted. I will continue to do so....
You asked for teaching....which means you are teachable, and that my friend, is a breath of fresh air!
And an example to me.
Thanks for the hope! the best present I have recieved this year!

[ChrisBabick]

Ditto, david43a. I am 'sick' over this, too. And, I apprecite the sentiment of tbon99's comments.

[NightMoves]

Very good article. I was outraged when I heard about Rick Warren. I am not gay (as if I must say that to seem objective) but it seemed like a real slap in the face to the "rational", progressive people who were the foot soldiers for Obama. But, with every day that passes, I am starting to think that Obama has wisdom unseen before. Warren has already taken hate language off of his website and is almost going on a "I don't hate gays, I love the gays" campaign. It doesn't mean he has changed his ways, but it is a start. I remember being so frustrated when Obama would not go after Sarah Palin, but then she self-destructed in front of our very eyes. He doesn't just react, he his thoughtful and methodical in his ways. And I can't help but wonder if Obama has a plan to massively increase gay and lesbian rights by the end of his 8 year reign. (yes, it will be 8:) But he knows it won't happen over night. He will inch the Rick Warrens of the world slowly toward the center, and he will simultaneuosly inch farther toward the left, giving the appearance that all things have remained the same. Brilliant.

[hapiday]

"Obama's own opposition to marriage equality"

Obama and Biden clearly stated they don't support Gay marriage. They view marriage between a man and a woman. Obama/Biden did say they believe in and support the gay community in civil unions. Knowing this, why would the Gays go out and campaign, send money and vote? This seems the basis of their issue. Just because someone that doesn't agree on every issue doesn't mean they are anti-you.

[zenlikejen]

"Knowing this, why would the Gays go out and campaign, send money and vote?"

Well, surely you've met people in your life who you knew didn't exactly share your 'world view', but you at least recognized that there was an 'open ear' for discussion? I watched every debate - the most entertaining for me being the Logo debates that only the Democratic candidates showed up for.....and yeah, after hearing Obama's take on gay marriage, I will admit I wasn't thrilled with it - but you at least got the impression he wold *LISTEN* to your side of the story. As much as his stand hurts me and my family at this juncture - there are many more issues that are effecting us right now that need to be addressed. He was the right man for the job. Period - that's why he got mine and my partners support.

[exhale09]

The problem here seems to be the "Marriage" Ceremony in the CHURCH.
I am totally in support of Gay Rights..but I believe to attempt to leglislate or force, Religious Church Ceremonies is againt the separation of Church and State as much as I believe for Religions...or people attempting to ban Legally Gay Marital contracts on RELIGIOUS bases... is also against the separation of church and State.

Are we quibbling over a "word" "Marriage" and where that is allowed to take place?
Is a contract of "Civil Union" that grants all the same rights as any other marriage..except for in Churches that do not hold the belief it should be allowed...good enough ?

Their are some religions who refuse to recognise a "Marriage" as letgitimate if both people getting married are not of that same particular Faith. They also believe that in the eyes of God, that is a sin.

I believe this is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, not just a "State" issue, and it should be taken to the Supreme Court for a Constitutional Decision.

The Religious Right knows that, and that is why they want to rewrite the Constitution to include the definition of Marriage as between a man and woman. I think right now, the Constitution is CLEAR about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL and Constitutionally speaking the religious right does not have a leg to stand on.

[savethecountry]

Gays supported Obama because, after being used by the previous two administrations to gain the votes of those opposed to our rights (Bill Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act, Dubyuh and the Repubs in 2000 and 2004), that's how desperate we were. Obama has said that he will "fiercely" defend gay rights. OK, but being for gay rights and opposing gay marriage is a little like saying that you love black people because your maid is black. Marriage is a LEGAL institution, and it has been for some time. Some choose to recognize it at a church, others don't. Yet they are all still married.

The last 2 groups of people in our nation who can be safely attacked (to varying degrees) are gays and atheists (I'm a member of both groups and, no, I'm not a masochist). Every other group that has been historically marginalized in our nation has gained (to varying degrees) its equal rights. Time and attrition are on our side on this thing. But until that day arrives, it DOES matter where you stand on this issue, just as it mattered where you stood on equal rights for blacks and other groups of color in the 1960s and on equal rights for women in the 1970s. The number of people willing to take unequivocable stands on issues is directly related to change occuring on those issues. Obama's schizophrenia on this issue is troubling, but I'll keep hoping that even HIS views can evolve.