 |
||
When Barack Obama takes the stage on January 20th to be sworn in as our 44th President, one of the two men he has invited to offer commemoratory prayers will know what it means for a member of the clergy to have his speech silenced by oppressive government action. That man will not be Rick Warren.
In his advocacy for California's Proposition 8 -- the ballot initiative that deprived millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians of the equal right to enter into a civil marriage -- Reverend Warren argued that the measure was necessary to protect the free speech of conservative pastors. So long as the California Supreme Court's decision requiring equal treatment under the law remained on the books, he claimed, pastors could be prosecuted for hate speech if they preached against LGBT equality. That claim was flatly untrue. The Supreme Court has made it clear that any such prosecution would violate the First Amendment, and California authorities would never attempt such a thing. If they did, the supporters of LGBT equality that I know would be the first to object. As a political tactic, Warren's argument may have worked, but his freedom of speech was never threatened.
Reverend Joseph Lowery, however -- the man who will offer the benediction at President Obama's inauguration -- has a different story to tell. In one of the greatest free speech disputes in American constitutional history, New York Times v. Sullivan, Reverend Lowery experienced the full force of government power calculated to silence and oppress.
The Sullivan case began in Alabama in 1960, during the rising tide of the Civil Rights Movement, and it involved an attempt by Southern authorities to use libel laws to prevent outside newspapers from reporting on nonviolent resistance to Jim Crow segregation. As newspapers began to cover the protests or run advertisements decrying the persecution of Martin Luther King, Southern officials would seize upon minor inaccuracies in their reporting and bring crippling libel suits aimed at terrorizing the papers and preventing them from bringing national attention to the struggle. In Sullivan, this tactic was used against the New York Times, with an Alabama court awarding $500,000 to L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery City Commissioner, for factual errors contained in an advertisement that the Times ran called "Heed Their Rising Voices" that did not even refer to Sullivan by name.
L.B. Sullivan sued four Alabama ministers in his $500,000 lawsuit in addition to the New York Times. One was Joseph Lowery. All were civil rights leaders whose names had been included in a long list of supporters in the advertisement. There was a tactical reason for suing the ministers -- it allowed Sullivan to keep his lawsuit in Alabama state court rather than federal court. But it was also meant to send a message. Reverend Lowery had been one of the leaders of the Montgomery bus boycott and co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Dr. King. Northern newspapers were not the only ones that Alabama officials wanted to keep in their place with abusive lawsuits, and the courts of Alabama were happy to oblige.
History remembers New York Times v. Sullivan as a great victory for free speech. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and, in 1964, the Court issued the landmark ruling that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" and that libel laws could not be used to stifle disagreement under our First Amendment.
What history often forgets, however, is the crucible that Reverend Lowery and the other ministers passed through for that victory. Before the Supreme Court intervened, Alabama authorities seized the ministers' property to satisfy the judgment. Lowery lost his car, and the ministers lived under the threat of state seizure for years until the Supreme Court finally provided vindication and their property was restored. Joseph Lowery had played a role in establishing the free speech rights of all Americans, including Rick Warren, but not without cost.
Every era has its civil rights struggles, and the struggle for LGBT equality is one of the great tests of our time. Rick Warren has chosen his role in that struggle, and history will judge the words that he uses in arguing that millions of Americans should not be full citizens. But the voice of Joseph Lowery is the one that matters. Reverend Lowery has fought for over fifty years to make this inauguration possible, and his message of freedom and equality embraces all Americans, including his LGBT brothers and sisters. When President Obama delivers his inaugural address, it is the example of Reverend Lowery that will inspire.
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
90 percent of you leaving comments here don't give a damn about gay rights, you just never liked Obama and this is your chance on jump on him. Give me a break.
BY THE WAY, I've been looking for a picture of the "families of America" float from Clinton's inaugural parade. It included same-sex couples and families with children headed by same-sex couples.
Does anyone know where I might find a picture of the float? I've searched and searched the web and found references to it, but no photo. I've seen pictures of it before so I don't know why they'd be so difficult to find.
Liz
I was willing to step up to the plate for Obama when he was under full frontal attack over the summer from the Hillary Fanatics. No more. He put himself up for a job where you can never please every body all the time, and that being the case, he has to be prepared for selective criticism from his various constituencies. The Warren appearance at this event should have been withdrawn faster than Bush withdrawing that pardon of his - i.e, in a NY second - when you put it into the context of Warren's instrumental role in the yes on Prop 8 campaign. Because it's not Obama's personal minority that's offended, we must "respect" this as reaching out and being inclusive. By that token how come he isn't being so "big" and "visionary" to include a march-past by a brigade of people in pointy white sheets? Right, that would be offensive.
Finally, a blog about Rev. Lowery. People acted as if he didn't exist or wasn't important. Why is it that there are thousands of posts in response to blogs that criticize Obama for selecting Warren, but just a few posts praising Obama for selecting Lowery? Is it because Lowery is Black?
During the primaries, not once did I read or hear about the LGBT community criticizing Clinton for her husband's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Nor did anyone question her on why she won't overturn that policy. They gave her a pass. But, most in the LGBT community are falling all over themselves criticizing Obama over a 2 minute invocation.
Why would Hillary be chastised for something Bill did when he was president? And yes, we gave him hell back them...tha
Because Hillary said she would keep the policy, that's why. Didn't you listen to her when she was campaigning?
"Why is it that there are thousands of posts in response to blogs that criticize Obama for selecting Warren, but just a few posts praising Obama for selecting Lowery? Is it because Lowery is Black?"
No, it isn't a race issue. It is about who supports human and civil rights for all. Rev. Lowery does. Warren and Obama don't. So there's not much to discuss about Lowery except that inviting Lowery doesn't negate the damage done by inviting Warren or offer a counterpoint to Warren.
To put it more clearly: There's nothing controversial about having Lowery do the benediction because Lowery is a political activist in support of human and civil rights for all. Warren is controversial because he is a political activist in opposition to human and civil rights for all.
As for Clinton, let's go through this again: Bill promised to eliminate the ban on gays serving in the armed forces. He was ambushed and had to settle for Don't Ask, Don't Tell- which is still better than a total ban.
Bill signed DOMA to head off an amendment to the U. S. Constitution. No one likes it, but at least there's no active movement to define marriage in the U. S. Constitution now.
As far as I know, Hillary wants to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Even military leaders like Colin Powell are saying is time to at least re-visit Don't Ask Don't Tell, if not directly saying it is time to scrap it.
I understand Hillary Clinton was in favor of reversing the federal provisions of DOMA. This would allow the federal government to recognized all marriages in all states for federal purposes such as income tax and immigration.
As a gay man, I like many others have been outraged and saddened by this choice and have read many of these articles coming from so many different viewpoints. At the end of the day, I've come to the conclusion that it's just politics as usual. The Evangelicals are a big group and Obama is already working them for 2012. They are a much larger constituency than gay Americans and we have been an unfortunate sacrifice.
As an atheist, I am very much looking forward to hearing Reverend Lowery. If that doesn't make sense, then you've accepted the divisive rhetoric of the right wing.
:)
I'll pass on watching Obama take the oath of office. He's shown to me that he choses not to be my president by sucking up to Rick Warren and the evangelicals. I expect Obama will disappoint more of his supporters so I'll be watching to see when that happens and how that group responds. I'll google Lowery's message and read it because I hope he'll say something positive about the LGBT community that Obama choses to throw under the bus. Other than that, inauguration day will just be another day on the calendar.
Why are the taxpayers footing the bill for two men who consult the Bible as their authority ?
The same book that has been used to condone slavery,
Steal native lands and resources
Kidnap Indian children from their families and abuse them,
Deny jews equal rights acoss the world
, Deprive women legal footing as well as the right to govern their own bodies
and reject specific groups of human beings ( gays and women)the right to minister religion to their fellow believers. in ther own institutions
Now they want to divide our citizens yet again, depriving gays of the same civil rights that others take for granted.
Don't these past uses of their freedoms tell us something about the kind of world they want to create?
Why then do we continue to have a government that endorses their divisive beliefs with invitations to give their veiws on a prominent national platform.?
Great that Rev. Lowery will be there to provide an effective counterpoint to Warren, but that's not the main power issue going on here. The point is that the PE has conceded a major victory to a snake oil salesman under the pretence of going to the center to pull over someone from the right into it also, when there was absolutely no need or point in doing so. Elections and campaigns are about ideas and principals, or should be. The train has left the station, no need to go back and pull on board the enemy that wanted to destroy it to begin with.
Unfortunately, those "enemies" are also Americans. They're along for the ride whether we like it or not. The Republicans forgot that when they excluded us for the last 8 years. Want to make the same mistake?
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Lowery is there because he deserves to be. If he is there to provide a counterpoint to Rick Warren, that is an insult to Lowery who has spent his life working for equal human and civil rights for all. Civil and human rights are not negotiable and cannot be balanced by those who oppose civil and human rights for all.
We must protect the rights of Warren control the theology and membership of his church.
But, it is not intolerance to demand equal civil and human rights for all people in the public square, in the workplace, the voting booth, etc. Nor is it intolerant to refuse a great honor to someone who doesn't respect all Americans.
Rick Warren is an activist against the civil and human rights of some Americans. The inauguration is for all Americans. For this reason, Warren should not have been given the honor of offering the invocation.
I keep seeing the accusation that we want to exclude Evangelicals. We don't want to exclude Evangelicals or anyone we disagree with. In fact, we want to reach out to all Americans and find common ground.
Civil and human rights for all are not negotiable and they should not be used as political weapons or wedges. That is where the Republicans went wrong. They continue to demand that their religious beliefs be enacted in law so that we will have to obey their religious beliefs whether we agree with them or not.
Thanks for telling that inspiring history. I will listen to Rev. Lowery with closer attention and respect and I'm an atheist!
I've mentioned Rev. Lowery and the other problems with Rick Warren and seen similar comments posted throughout this debate as comments on various articles, so it is hardly fair to say that the other horrific attitudes of Mr. Warren have been ignored.
I will repeat myself once again: This is about equal civil and human rights for all people. Rick Warren is a political activist who opposes equal civil and human rights for all people. Mr. Obama should be ashamed to give Mr. Warren a place of honor in his inauguration.
That is why this 58 year-old grandmother and life-long Democrat is going to Washington with her husband and grandchildren to protest the inauguration of Mr. Obama.
Equal human and civil rights are not negotiable and presenting counter-balancing positions on those rights at an inauguration that is supposed to be for all people, not just the heterosexual ones is anti-American and just plain wrong.
Thanks. For your other posts on this subject as well.
The far right couldn't get away with the ludicrous lies they use to scare voters if we still took civics education in this country seriously. It's pathetic that so many actually believe equal rights for gay Americans could in any way impinge on the freedom of religion.
To all those who keep saying "get over it", I would remind you of the words of Harvey Milk:
"Hope will never be silent"
We will never be silent until we achieve our rightful equality under the law. We won't "get over it" until then. Sick of the gay rights movement? Then give gay people justice and it will go away.
"We will never be silent until we achieve our rightful equality under the law. We won't "get over it" until then. Sick of the gay rights movement? Then give gay people justice and it will go away."
MAKES TOTAL COMMON SENSE TO ME.
THANKS.
Back in the 60's - when the whole inter-racial Marriage thing was going on ....argume
Do you have a reference to this? I'm aware of Loving v. Virginia, but I have never seen anything written about a compromise of this nature. I'd like to learn more.
Thank!
If anyone is interested in reading a comparison between Rev. Lowery and Pastor Warren, there is one here.
http://qua
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
