|
||
Mr. Obama Disagrees
You can disagree about the propriety of the auto industry bailout. You can disagree about free trade. You can disagree about a lot of things. But when you say gay people are pedophiles and rapists, that is not a simple disagreement: it is a stupid, hateful position that, say, a President-elect should stay miles away from.
Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration is dreadful. His explanation is, if possible, even worse. He shrinks Warren's grotesque comparisons down to a "disagreement," as if we were talking about ethanol subsidies. But we are not. In fact, we are not even talking about marriage rights, we are talking about demonizing an entire group of Americans for the purpose of religious indoctrination, political gain and financial profit. Or doing so out of sheer hatred and idiocy. Or both.
During this year's primary, Obama suddenly realized after 20 years that his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said things that were so beyond the pale that it was worth throwing him under the political bus, and shunning him forever. What those things were, besides loud snippets taken out of context, is not clear, but I am pretty sure Wright has never falsely accused anyone of pedophilia, rape, incest and bestiality, no matter how over-the-top his style may occasionally be. But Wright was scary to lots of people, most of them white, whose fear of a black planet overrode any rational analysis (starting with the fact that if the bourgeois Obamas attended Trinity, that in itself was a pretty sure bet that the church was not fomenting an Afro-centric revolution.) But Obama did what he had to do not to lose too badly in Pennsylvania and Ohio, kicking Wright to the curb, ostensibly because he was "outraged" by the pastor's comments.
That Wright appears to have been replaced by Warren in Obama's heart says a lot about the president-elect's rootlessness and shifting identity. Within a year, he has gone from relying on the advice of a virulently progressive African-American pastor in a Chicago church, to being "friends" with an arch-conservative, bigoted, white pastor from Orange County, and handing the latter the most visible platform a religious leader in America can behold, the presidential inauguration.
Obama's inclusiveness was always conditional, as evidenced by the Wright affair. Obama says we have to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable;" but is there anything more disagreeable than being called an incestuous rapist pedophile? There are plenty of people who are not invited to the inauguration, are not part of Obama's circle, and are certainly not asked to give the invocation. If not, we would all be howling at the presence of the good people from the Aryan Nation, the Nation of Islam and sundry other groups. But these groups make the mistake of not only being deeply homophobic, but also of spewing hatred towards a whole slew of other segments (women, Jews, African-Americans, Catholics, Christians, white people, etc). Were they to stick to vilifying gay people, as Warren does, they would be golden, and may even find a place at the all-inclusive Obama table. There is clearly no group in America, perhaps besides Muslims, who could be vilified so openly and officially, and be told to get over it in the name of agreeing to disagree.
Obama's clinical interpretation of his "disagreement" with Warren's hate-speech makes it sound as if he and the pastor are Ron Kirk and Hilda Solis, respectively the nominated US Trade Representative and Labor Secretary, jauntily sparring over free trade with Colombia. That shows a horrible misunderstanding of the state of gay America, or perhaps a case of political cynicism gone way, way too far, even by Washington's loose standards. Two weeks ago a man was killed in New York for being gay, "a lynching in Brooklyn," the New York Times called it. Gay people and those perceived to be gay make up one in six of all reported hate crimes in the United States (and far more go unreported.) Do we really think that there is not a cause and effect between demonizing gay people and the beatings and maimings and murders they suffer disproportionately for being hated? And does Obama really want to be complicit in this persecution? And does he really want to be known as a chief contributor to the well-oiled campaign to deprive gay people of some of the most basic of rights?
We are told that Joseph Lowery, the prominent African-American minister and civil rights leader, will also be involved in the inauguration, and he is a strong supporter of gay rights, including marriage. That's good, but what is this inauguration, some kind of daytime talk show (or CNN at any time for that matter) where every time a gay (or gay friendly) person is featured, there has to be a counterpoint, usually someone who thinks gay people should all die because it says so in the bible? By the way, we are also told that FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME there will be a gay marching band at the inauguration. Now that really makes up for being called a pedophile.
Obama, smooth talker that he is, stumbled in his response to questions about Warren's involvement, finally mumbling something about his "consistent" support of "equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Even that meek pronouncement was a bit of an overstatement: if he opposes same-sex marriage, he is by definition not in favor of equality. Perhaps more importantly, you definitely lose all right to call yourself a supporter of gay rights when you associate yourself so closely with a man who hates gay people. There is nothing more for Obama to say on the subject, except to apologize, explain that he was misguided and/or misinformed, withdraw his invitation to Warren, and never be seen with him again.
In one fell swoop, even before his inauguration, Obama has succeeded in matching Bill Clinton's single worst moment of cynicism, his gratuitous attack on Sister Souljah. And that is exactly what is most painful about Obama's elevation of Warren to "America's pastor:" the gratuitousness of it all. If all goes well, he is four years away from his next election. He received far more backing in time and money from gay people and their supporters than he ever could from Warren's congregation, as Jane Smiley aptly put it. At least Clinton was in some trouble (wasn't he always?) when he lashed out at Sister Souljah. This of course does not make it better, but one could at least pretend that his desperate need to cling to power blinded him to the racism of the occasion.
Obama, by contrast, is on top of the world. What does he need Warren for at this very moment? The small, short-term advantage he gets from associating so closely with a hate-mongerer gives us a pretty good idea of where gay people stand in the president-elect's moral and political calculations. It wasn't always so of course, as I recall at least one fundraising event at the home of a gay couple where Obama raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars at one of the roughest moments of his campaign. There were also the millions of hours of volunteer work put in by gay people all over the country, and endless donations and endorsements.
And we did all this despite sometimes profound misgivings about Obama's position on same-sex marriage, with which he "disagrees." He never could really tell us why, or wouldn't tell us why, hiding behind the circular argument that marriage is between "a man and a woman." It is high time that instead of simply swallowing our pride, we put our money and votes where our mouth is, and that is simply not with those whose opposition to our rights is based in political calculation, cynicism, or a highly misplaced injection of religion into public policy. When we have misgivings, let's listen to them and act on them. Let's not take a wink-wink nod-nod approach to securing our rights: it makes us look weak and does not work. Let those who "disagree" with our very being do so at their own expense. And let those who disagree with hate do so loudly, clearly and consistently, or fail to do so at their own expense. And let us start by walking away from an inauguration at which we will have to sit (or stand a mile away) and watch the man we put so much hope into betray us so deeply in the first seconds of his presidency. For those who insist on going, a hotel room and two train tickets from New York to Washington are newly available.
Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks for this post, we really need to start talking about the overall price of homophobia instead of being played by the bible-thumpers into reducing the issue to marriage vs. civil union. In addition to gay bashing what we should be talking about is:
1. Teen Suicide. Gay teens facing rejection from family and friends commit suicide at a rate at least 3 times higher than hetero, it is estimated a gay teen attempts suicide every 5 hours. If I were to call this a gay holocaust I would be labeled as an extremist nut, but why?
2. Broken Families. The swishy stereotype still promoted by the media and even many gay activists/supporters themselves is responsible for a huge number of gay men staying in the closet, getting married and often destroying the lives of the str8 woman they use as "beards". The high profile cases like the NJ governor are the tip of a very very big iceberg.
3. HIV Transmission. The self-hatred of homophobia increases the likelihood of self-destructive behavior among gays. And because of all the men who stay in the closet who don't identify as "gay" and get HIV education, they spread HIV at higher rates and infect unknowing female partners. It's even worse in minority communities, where the increased homophobia we witnessed in the Prop 8 vote results in higher infection rates, Black men are 12% of the population but account for 50% of new HIV infections.
OOPS! It turns out Rev. Lowery ISN'T a staunch supporter of gay marriage, after all.
From an interview he did last night: "Well, I've never said I support gay marriage."
I'm glad to see this issue being discussed openly by millions of people nationwide. Equality for gays won't happen without it, so it's good.
I'm gay, and although I'm not pleased about the Rick Warren deal, I also think about things in a longer, more mature timeframe than politics usually demands. Evangelicals comprise a huge proportion of America's population, and they hold political sway. We must reach out and convince them that gays are normal, moral, and loving humans via our actions and our uncontroversial, healthy, productive lives.
After 8 tortured years of division and Dubby, who listens to nothing outside of his self-deluded concept of God, we need to dialogue with evangelicals. When they really start to know us and respect us, they'll incrementally drop their opposition to us. Not all of them, not all at once, but over a decade or two the majority will significantly shift.
So in that forward-thinking spirit, I choose to not get upset over this. Elevating Warren and his megachurch to this prominent spot will force some examination and revision of their stances over time. This is a tactic within a greater strategy.
No one who worked to elect Obama is going to get everything they want. Obama is an ally. Let's not let spite, bitterness, and disillusionment throw the 2012 elections to Palin/Romney, OK? Focus and keep the eyes on the prize. Eventually we'll arrive at full equality and inclusion, and I predict it'll happen within 12 years tops.
Obama's elevation of Rick Warren doesn't open dialogue, it signals his unwillingness to engage in it. Obama can't be considered a true LGBT rights supporter because his opposition of gay marriage relegates gay Americans to second-class citizenship. Obama's weak defense of the selection centered on reciprocity, because Warren had invited him to speak at his church despite knowing that Obama's views were different. But Warren would have to have chosen Obama as the keynote speaker at the dedication of Saddleback to come near the significance of Obama spotlighting Warren in his inaugural ceremony. The disproportionately generous, completely gratuitous, and unnecessary gesture on Obama's signals more than simple openness. It's a warm embrace. Tolerance of the intolerable--Warren's views of homosexuals are truly heinous--may cloak amoral positioning in the robe of civility, but doesn't alter it one iota. People who are defending the invitation should really be thinking about what they're defending.
I do not understand why Obama is deliberately thrusting this throwback into the face of America during this historic public ceremony, knowing he'll be making literally millions of citizens feel disrespected. I can't know his thinking, but I know mine, and I reject the idea that we should launch this era by paying homage to the demons of the old. Accepting this kind of bad decision heals no wounds and bridges no schism, and can only embolden the bigotocracy to further insult, and worse.
HuffPost's Pick
If you have a neighbor that plays music you do not like at a volume that intrudes on your peace and quiet the civilized thing to do is to go knock on their door and explain your situation. Their taste in music is not going to change but they may turn it down to a level you can both live with.
Before Warren was placed on the national stage I had only anecdotal awareness of what he was doing in regards to LGBT issues. As a result of this exposure his doctrines have come under scrutiny by a much larger audience and he is finding himself having to explain and defend the positions of his church and his actions in this regard.
All of the wailing would have credence if Obama had not consistently made it clear that he is “a passionate supporter of gay and lesbian rights.” When have you ever heard a president say that before? Rather than seeing this as a slap in the face to the LGBT community I see it as a challenge to the religious right to come out and talk about it. Conflict can only be resolved when both parties enter into a dialogue and the one who initiates that dialogue already has the advantage.
Good way to see it. I wish Obama had said the same thing to Warren -- now that would have been leadership, not pandering -- but maybe he will -- he's not there yet.
Sorry Here's how we see the issue:
You have a neighbor that has loudspeakers atop his roof that are blasting statements that say gay people are pedophiles and rapists, not simply "playing music that is so loud it disturbs you". He also is shouting that your friends and neighbors should go to the polls and vote to undo your marriage because, well, the fact that you love your consenting adult partner enough to enter into the bonds and ties of that institution shows you are simply a pedophile and rapist and should be accorded all the respect that they deserve.
He runs a public social organization that will not let you in because, well you are just a pedophile or rapist and every Sunday he tells his thousands of members the same thing - oh and reminds them to go vote against your marriage.
Kinda depends on your point of view and whether it really affects or matters to YOU it seems.
And frankly, your characterization of the real distress and anguish of the LGBT community over this matter, which admittedly has been expressed through words reflecting emotional pain but often reasoned argument as simply "WAILING" is the same kind of dehumanization and demonizing that Warren preaches by labeling it all as childish.
In November, Pesident-elect Barack Obama invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, a staunch supporter of gay marriage, has been invited to give the Benediction at the inauguration.
Yet, the only thing you and other columnists have focused on is the inclusion of Warren to deliver the invocation.
That's right, ckfan, because of course a marching band cancels out the global bully pulpit handed to a man who has, on numerous occasions, equated homosexuals to rapists and pedophiles.
Which was Jenkins entire point, which he made in more than one of the paragraphs printed above.
Which you apparently did not actually read, else you would never have posted such an asinine comment.
What bully pulpit? He's going to give a 3-minute general prayer, period.
Some of my best friends are gay trombone players, huh?
To Paul Jenkins:
Brilliant. You're cancelling your tickets and hotel room for the inauguration. You're going to boycott it because of a 60-second speech by a well-known bigot.
That is wonderful. I'm sure it will achieve our ends. Ministers all over the world will drop their opposition to same-sex marriage because you stayed home. Barack Obama will replace half his cabinet with openly-gay people to make sure you attend. The Matthew Shepard act will pass overnight, Don't Ask Don't Tell will be revoked and the California Supreme Court will invalidate Prop 8, all because you're staying away from the inauguration.
Well-thought-out strategic move. Guaranteed to promote understanding and support. A great underpinning for legislative progress. A wonderful way to bring everyone to the table. A perfect sympathy-evoking protest.
Why not grow up? Work toward educating people, supporting Obama's belief in our cause, give cover and legitimacy to legislators to help them take a politically unpopular stance in our favor? Why not?
Your article is not well-thought out. It''s juvenile. Your entire reaction reads more like a hissy-fit, reinforcing the public perception of us as a group of pissed-off girlie-men stomping our high-heels and threatening to take our interior decor and leave the party.
Take a breath, calm down, and get smart. There's too much at stake for such silly, over-the-top posturing. We need NOT to sound like the Sarah Palin supporters of the Left.
Spoken like a true Lincoln Log Cabin Gay.
Couldn't you find any more stereotypical self loathing metaphors to use in the space you had to type?
Go back to your ivory tower, I got mine closet with Mary Cheney and let the activists in America contiune to fight for YOUR rights while you play armchair organizer writing checks and attending Prada give away parties.
I am a gay man. Yet I have come to believe that gays, as a political group, are complete idiots. Totally gonzo. The passage of Prop 8 may itself be an indication of that.
We don't seem to be able to think strategically We don't seem to be able to prioritize to our own benefit and to achieve our goals.
We have the first President, ever, who is truly sympathetic to our goals. So what do we do? Bash the hell out of him before he even claims the office, throw hissy-fits over a perceived "slap in the face" for what? A 60-second prayer that none of us, ultimately give a damn about and no one will remember two days later.
What's wrong with us? Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot? Do we really believe that by reviling Obama for his choice of invocation preacher, we will gain his enthusiastic support? Or are we just out-of-control in our emotional response to a bigoted idiot minister (a description, unfortunately of many ministers and the entire Catholic and Mormon churches)?
Go ahead, alienate Obama and his team. Threaten not to vote for him. Work against him. Humiliate him.
Then, try to get our agenda passed under President Sarah Palin.
We are, sometimes, our own worst enemy.
Maybe -- or is this indicative that Obama will throw us under the bus politically like Clinton did -- as a Dem you only need gay people to win the primaries. After that -- and after you are in --for the second term campaign we don't count so why does he need to help us? He doesn't. If he is a decent, honest man he will. Wait and see?
He is going to work for equality for gays, despite how much you rant and rave and piss and moan. He has already discussed getting rid of don't ask, don't tell.
I detest this choice of Warren, but as a homosexual man who supported Obama, I think this is just the beginning...it isn't too much for me to hold my hands over my ears when Warren prays--its a few minutes long prayer. What I will listen to is the last prayer...that of Mr. Lowery. This is just the beginning--let's see what PE Obama can do....my guess is that he will still deliver big time on major issues for homosexuals...I refuse to get discouraged over this.
He can choose the man in the moon to do the invocation for all I care. I'm agnostic and give less than a damn about God and spiritual advisors. He's using Warren for the invocation, Lowery who supports same sex marriage for the benediction, and for the first time in our history Obama's having an openly gay and lesbian band march in the inaugural parade. If that's not good enough for you, tough.
I'm straight and support same sex marriage. I don't care who gets married, as long as it's not me.
I support gay adoption because I want kids in a loving household and not rotting in our foster care system, but I'm sick of identity politics, and all this self-righteous indignation, and self-pity that's polluted this country for far too long. That's just why decided to grow the party so he wouldn't be beholden to some demanding "base".
I'm glad PE Obama's standing his ground. Anybody doubt his toughness and resoluteness now? Every decision a president makes pisses somebody off, if he's doing his job right. It comes with the territory. If this keeps you away from the inauguration it's your choice. You won't be missed. In four years don't vote for him if you don't like it. I'm sure the GOP will put forth a candidate you can dig.
Finally some honesty. I actually appreciate this comment more than all of the apologetic ones. Although you are mistaken about the root issue at play--disagreement over same-sex message is not the point, this particular pastor is (another with the same views who hadn't led a recent political fight would have been OK)--you are absolutely correct about our options. But the who-you-gonna-go-to? scare tactic won't work in 2012. We voted over 70% for him this year. We'll sit home next time. We get it. Sometimes all you can do is what you can do.
Down the road he may piss me off too. I wouldn't be surprised since no president has come close to making me 100% happy with his decisions. Not even Jed Bartlett. In four years I'll weigh up all the results of the many decisions and policies of President-elect Obama's term and decide whether to vote for him again or not.
Obama knew this was going to happen. There is an old saying. "You can't please everyone." If he did he would be a looser. He knows what really is important and this is not.
Please forgive me, but I determined to have everyone spell this correctly: It's "loser," not "looser."
I'm a straight guy who fully supports LGBT rights, including gay marriage (as anyone who knows me will tell you, it's STRAIGHT marriage I'm opposed to - at least for me :-) ). I reluctantly voted for Obama despite my misgivings over his conservatism, right-wing bent on foreign affairs (McCain actually had some more moderate positions than Obama), association with neo-liberal economic partisans (he is, after all, a U of Chicago guy) and his overt religiosity. I'm a non-believer, a group even more reviled than homosexuals, at least according to polls saying that Americans would much sooner vote for a homosexual than a non-believer.
Anyway, I'm as appalled as Paul and many of you here are to Obama's selection of Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration because of his being a right-wing culture warrior, his bigotry toward homosexuals and his being an evolution denier. Obama has stated that he wants to restore the respect for science and rational thinking that has been trampled on by movement conservatism. I think he should start by eliminating the "invocation" and "benediction" from the inaugural ceremony. These are clear violations of church/state separation. Inviting a creationist to speak at the inaugural ceremony is like inviting a soothsayer or an astrologist. Yes, Obama is the president of creationists. He's also the president of those who believe the earth is at the center of the Universe (yes, they're still around). Do they also get a place at the table?
Precisely.
"Ron Kirk and Hilda Solis...jauntily sparring over free trade with Colombia"?
Yeah, such trivie. Try Googling "Columbia trade-union killing". From the first item:
"In Colombia, 445 trade union members received death threats and 99 were murdered ". That's the issue they 'jauntily' disagree about.
Politics is all about life and death questions. You may be right on Warren (although it could play the other way) but it's hard to listen when you devalue everyone else's lives.
So, when are we going to see a column praising Obama for selecting Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery? Or, does he not count because he's Black????
I am reminded of what David Gergen said after Obama picked Hillary for SOS instead of Richardson:
Before an election is the time to stab your enemies; after an election is the time to stab your friends.
Nobody is being "stabbed in the back" or "thrown under the bus," but nice melodramatic spin.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
This is not the moment, Warren is not the man, and we will remember. Obama has much more to loose than face. Lord, and we had such high hopes to be dashed so soon. No math and figuring will add up to a plausible explanation by Barrack. The cat is out of the bag, he is black, feral, and mighty pissed. Pardon us if we get a tad unruly.
And we will not forget that you abandoned America at a time when we needed everyone working together to bring about positive change. We are not going to forget you. Ever.
Apparently you already had. But let's maintain perspective, shall we? Gays have been told over and over again at this site that our numbers are insignificant and that it wasn't we who elected Obama. Will you even miss us?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
