By Michael Sommer and Veronika Sommer
Our late friend, Willy Brandt, while he was Chancellor of Germany and even well before he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary visionary work on détente with the then Soviet Union, in 1970 got down on his knees to symbolically apologize on behalf of the German nation for its countrymen's Nazi crimes. He did it in Warsaw, Poland at the site of its World War Two ghetto, before the cameras of the world. The legendary gesture was admired by the world, for Brandt in a single moment restored a good measure of honor to a new Germany, but the old Germany, such as remained of it, was still not fully trusted by the world. It was a great, brave act, and Willy Brandt was a great, brave man. He drank too much and was a womanizer and he was not always appreciated by his fellow Germans, and like all men and women, was morally flawed. But he remains one of the greatest moral men the world has ever known. He personally did not have to apologize since he had been a Major in the Norwegian Army in World War Two and indeed fought against his immoral countrymen. His singular and public act remains one of the most honorable in modern history.
Barack Hussein Obama in the minds of more than a few is about to kiss away a measure of honor that the world has quickly come to expect of him as the new, inspiring leader of America. He is foolishly endangering world confidence and with him, a newfound confidence in the American nation because he may have a surprising moral flaw or disregard. He astonishes the world by compounding it before the world's media by absolutely refusing to do anything about what we are about to discuss.
As we will see in a moment, the President-elect of the United States has a real problem in not rescinding his invitation to Reverend Rick Warren, a homophobe, to give the invocation at his inaugural.
What he has done and is about to continue to do has been greeted with shock. There have been many shouts of "it's his biggest mistake." Worse, pick up the phone to Australia, New Zealand, Britain, or Germany, as we have done, and opinion leaders privately will agree: they are privately shocked by the next President of the United States.
There is enormous excitement in Washington, D.C. amid the trepidation for the seemingly unending gloomy times ahead, for the President-elect has said that the recession may go on or four more years, costing millions of more jobs, and trillions of dollars in losses. Yet the excitement reaches throughout America and the world. An amazing three to five million people are expected for the January 20th Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States. For most of the expectations of the world seem to be fulfilled: the next President is an inspiring, eloquent man who even before his inauguration has already spread a giant light across the planet.
Much faster than anyone rightfully could expect, the world has restored its confidence in America to solve many global problems, so that our nation may guide it into a brighter future. Americans and the world wish to be inspired by his upcoming and very probably memorably uplifting oratory on Inauguration day when he will reveal more of his corrective future plans. The great expectations of what is yet to come from your new administration, Mr. President-elect, which is filled with so many very talented persons, are based on a renewed trust in America's honor, integrity, and conscience, qualities that you continually displayed during the election campaign.
The prospect of continued world recession, international and domestic resentment of costly and morally unjustified wars, combined with Mr. Bush's pretenses of America's unselfishness, as well as exasperation about giant global muddles of unsolved, inter-related environmental hotspots that seemingly pop up out of nowhere and urgently need corrective care, Mr. President --- all of these have been quickly overcome by your impending presidency. The world admires America again because Americans have elected you. We are all bound together on this planet, and all six billion plus of us seem to eagerly await your exhortation for real change, not traditional, business-as-usual, Washington-partisan, cosmetic ones.
We all so want change, and probably far more than you can realistically bring about globally, Mr. President. When you accurately say we must undertake radical, yet sensible change, and that it will be truly costly in treasure and effort and may take its toll, we believe you. We are ready, Mr. President.
For the expected changes to really work, as all Americans know, they must consult their hearts and minds. All of us in some measure, large or small, must get involved, as indeed must our friends and allies as well.
It will be a horrendous task and you, Mr. President, know that well.
As with other American political leaders who preceded you, and who had the great fortune, character, education, intelligence and courage to become great, inspiring presidents who could turn the country away from pending disasters, the secret behind your overwhelming election, Mr. President, may well be founded more on your person than your policies. We may still differ on policies, as headlines reveal, but we agree in the main on you as the man who ----
We Americans have grown truly cynical by past incapable presidents, Congresses, courts, judiciary, media, and churches who have ill-served us and most of us have not been vigilant, active citizens either. And Jefferson warned that unless we were, democracy would not meet our hopes and expectations. So, our condition is the result of a few decades of rather regressive history, loggerhead politics, citizen neglect, and Wall Street greed, dishonesty and lies of our leaders, among other factors.
So it is natural that now, when John Donne's bell tolls for us all, as lone individuals we may seem helpless in helping you, Mr. President, solve the many real crises facing all of us in these stressful and dangerous times. But millions of Americans have already taken the call --- as they did under John Kennedy --- and are already becoming active in myriads of ways ---large and small ---on their own.
We are in the midst of truly exploring the word "sacrifice." George Bush did not ask for sufficient sacrifice from Americans after 9/11 when millions of us were ready to burden it in some measure. For if we are nothing else, we are a generous, kindly and honorable people and we will gladly sacrifice, if we must, for noble ends. In not asking national sacrifice of us, but instead asking us "to shop," and by starting two wars and lying about the need for them and the real reasoning behind them, George Bush, as he did so often, demonstrated bad, immoral leadership. In a word, he exploited our generosity, honor, and decency. We reacted to him, in part, because we were afraid and he went along with him because we trusted him, and he said he had the facts.
We all certainly wish to restore honor to America after George W. Bush, the worst president in our history, who in his ignorance, with his arrogance, smirks and misplaced vanity, abused us. Winston Churchill once said of the British Labor leader Clement Attlee, "he is a modest man, but then, he has a great deal to be modest about." Bush's wanton, reckless leadership trod upon the honor of America and greatly dishonored this great nation before the world for eight, long years. And that stain will take even Barrack Obama a good amount of time to remove, but he, and we, have the resolve and means to do it.
So in his oratory on January 20th and in his conduct afterwards, honor and conscience will be primary stuff. It must be dealt with by Barack Obama, daily and openly after he takes the oath of office, because after all is said and done, it involves the honor of each and every one of us as rightfully proud Americans, and it will be the grounds for the world's judgment about us.
Some of which now follows has been written and spoken about and some has been viewed as "premature" criticism of this President. There are already numerous pleas to curb "unneeded criticism" of Mr. Obama until he accomplishes several great, urgently needed tasks. Some pleas have been accompanied with, "Let us be fair, in the tradition of the American fairness." Undaunted, however, since Americans thankfully vigorously exercise their freedom of speech, some members of the so-called " left wing" of the Democratic Party, for example, have been told in answer to their criticisms of the upcoming president to "cool it," to not unduly dwell on any early disenchantments with Mr. Obama ---- real or imagined. That may be because rocking the boat might seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. If we do not speak up early, which is now, we might well repeat our past mistakes.
This anti-critical litany goes: "yes, the President may have made some mistakes of oratory or action in his recent election campaign and after it, for he is only human." But, goes the litany, let us give him a fair chance. We all seem to agree that both he and indeed each and every one of us as Americans have almost unimaginably difficult economic, political, military, environmental and social agendas before us. They are critical agendas that need immediate and effective solutions, from all of us, the President, the Congress, the churches, all members of our society.
But we should also beware of crippling our conscience by timidly taming our integrity and downsizing our honor in order to take action faster. The action needed foremost in our agendas might well be a moral one: to vigorously protect our conscience and to hold on to our national integrity so that hope and the will to act may be restored and founded on national self-respect and honor for generations to come.
On a pragmatic side, the very top of the agenda is lead by America's and the world's economic peril, closely followed by grave, environmental dangers. Then there is the always explosive Middle East and now the new, terribly destructive conflagration in Gaza, which Jimmy Carter, for one, says was unneeded. That in turn is followed by the very troublesome and ever more costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what to do about Iran and North Korea. And, of course, there are a myriad of other, almost countless, serious issues. Americans may be proud of raising some of these issues themselves and helping to formulate needed questions. Many were widely discussed in the presidential campaign by the President and other candidates and in countless wonderful town meetings by Americans, who once they detect a problem, are quickly on top of it. Among other, serious domestic issues that almost desperately need effective solutions are joblessness, foreclosures, and health care, just to name three. These and many other troubles not only need real, quick, effective solutions. They must also demonstrate real change, hopefully led by the President if he can force the Congresses' hand and effectively fight off persistent stubbornness and the thousands of lobbies, and if change can at long last include bipartisan political will and action.
The President has spoken long and well about these matters. He has listened and thought deeply. And now he is apparently ready to act quickly on a host of fronts. Much of the media, most politicians, much of America, expect his first 100 days to be a breathless honeymoon.
So, with this background, when an apparently "minor matter of honor" raises its head amid all these very real crises --- somewhat similarly as it did in France nearly 110 years ago to the day --- it may easily be shouted down by one or more Americans as "over the top," and "ill-advised." But history teaches us that honor is never ill-advised. If dishonor is not dealt with quickly and effectively, it can strike back hard. And it can leave lasting, grave suspicions about the offenders, be they persons, leaders, or nations whose very honor is at stake lest citizen confidence be eroded. And when confidence is gone, as the recent stock market losses show, anything is possible.
And so it was as France's honor as a nation and the French people's very honor was at stake on January 13, 1898. For it was on that day that Emile Zola, the great French lawyer and writer, shocked the world with perhaps his most famous work, J'accuse. It was published on the front page of a Paris newspaper. It rightly and correctly accused the anti-Semitic, corrupt military leadership of France of not only falsely condemning a Jewish officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, for treason. He decidedly had not committed treason. But the military scoundrels compounded their monstrous crime by sentencing the innocent Dreyfus to Devil's Island, the infamous prison located six miles off the coast of French Guiana from which, unless you enjoy treacherous currents, sharks and poisonous snakes, there is no little chance of escape. Sending Dreyfus to Devil's Island was deliberate. The military leaders of France knew full well that this hell hole rarely left men unbroken in body, spirit, or soul.
Emile Zola, as was his adroit nature, because he unpleasantly surprised the unscrupulous high command of the French officer corps by his writings and legal tricks, eventually had to flee France as a the result of his skills. But he continued to ever more upset the high command, causing them to commit even more lies and evasions, as most true scoundrels will. Then he eventually managed through his perseverance, energy, vigilance, and great daring, to right the wrong that was done to the hapless Dreyfus.
Dreyfus' ghastly conviction was not only extremely hurtful to this proud and honorable officer, but also to his devoted and long-suffering wife, who in her desperation had engaged the famous Zola. But Dreyfus' illegal conviction was above all a great, great disservice to France.
Zola not only saved the career of Captain Dreyfus whose rank and medals were fully restored. But being Zola, he went several steps further: he adroitly turned French anti-Semitism on its ear for one brief, glorious, and still legendary moment. And most importantly of all, Zola saved France from itself.
Winston Churchill in 1940 also wanted to save the honor of France, for he argued, correctly, that France could have well fought on against Hitler with its standing army of 400,000 troops and many tanks. But almost inexplicitly France, its male population severely diminished in the trenches of World War One, and with aged and fascist-leaning generals, did not do so. This left Great Britain alone to take on The Hun. And that great, costly mistake --- a military as well as a moral one, except for the glorious courage of the French Resistance, may forever be considered a stain on France, a very great and honorable nation.
Honor is priceless, as history has taught us, and as President-elect Obama, a Harvard man, knows full well. And as he also knows that honor can be lost in a second, an hour, a day, or a generation.
Therefore, with knowledge of the President's superb education before us, let us now venture to be "over-the-top", Mr. President. Let us here and now in this commentary try to save a bit of honor, lest we do not adequately care for our conscience and that of our great nation.
To wit: you can do it, Mr. President, by saving all Americans and the world from hearing the invocation of Reverend Rick Warren, of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Orange County, California on Inaugural Day. For Reverend Rick, by your own decision to invite him, Mr. President, will share the Inaugural podium with you for all the world to witness. And that is neither an honorable affair nor moral, Mr. President.
What will "L'Affair Warren," as Zola might term it, bring America in The Year of Our Lord 2009? To his credit in the manner of an American success story, Reverend Warren is a highly popular evangelist and best-selling author, who is about to bask in his Andy Warhol 15 second sunshine with the President on the world's center stage. But amazingly, to publicly wrestle with the President's judgment, or lack of it, Reverend Warren is also a gay-bashing homophobe --- very unlike the President. Thus, the question before you, Mr. President, is, can you or we really afford him?
You have said before the world that you make no apologies for inviting him to give the invocation at your inauguration. You categorically refuse to budge. These are acts that have already infuriated the world's gay community, and many enlightened people around the world. To borrow from the historical example of King Henry when he became so irritated by his dogged but morally upright Chancellor Thomas Becket (and certainly without here hinting at or advocating any felonious conduct, as was the case with Henry and which, in fact, was in fact carried out by four zealous knights) ---how can you not "rid yourself of this troublesome" minister on Inaugural Day? You could still easily accomplish this, Mr. President, by reversing your invitation and denying Reverend Rick the ill-advised invitation to give the invocation at your Inaugural, even at this very late date. Discussions over lunch yes, invocation, no. To reverse Cole Porter's lyrics, not everything goes, especially at presidential invocations. Up to now, Mr. President, you have taken the pragmatic path, disguising it with democratic, philosophical homilies. You have stated that "political differences should not serve as an impediment to progress." On another occasion you said regarding the Reverend, and presumably his followers, "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." We may generally agree on this view, Mr. President, but what if we talk about immorality and national honor and the honor of the presidency itself? What then?
For if Reverend Warren, does give the invocation, Mr. President, while he himself doubtless does not fully realize it --- and at the moment he seems to glory in his upcoming appearance --- it will nevertheless be an embarrassment to him to be sure, but above all, to you and the Oval Office. It will be a deep and painful disappointment to millions of American gays who supported you with their door- to- door campaigning, their hard-earned dollars, and their believing hearts, in behalf of your becoming the first Afro-American President of the United
States. They trusted you, too, Mr. President.
What, oh, horrors, if, for example, just a few of the three to five million who will visit Washington on the glorious, exciting, Inaugural Day --- say only a dozen or so men and women" from Sodom" --- turn their backsides toward Reverend Warren when he speaks? Or, worse, what if, in front of world television, some brave gay souls --- or their straight sisters and brothers --- actually risk arrest and mishandling by the gendarmes, by mooning the Reverend?
Even if nothing happens --- absolutely nothing at all --- on January 20th,, Barack Obama will in some awkward way have to face up to and learn from his first and very possibly costly, moral mistake. He cannot easily escape the moral mistake, a blunder in the best case.
It will taint America's credibility, and too much of the world, be a foreboding that this President, as others before him, may not be the best that America has to offer. With Reverend Warren giving the invocation, the President, as well as the nation, cannot easily escape international caution and scrutiny. Troubling questions may now arise about your sincerity, Mr. President, questions such as: did you use your beautiful and moral rhetoric during the election campaign to gain support and then turn your back on your gay and liberal supporters when it is opportune? Up to now, Mr. President, you have not very effectively or convincingly danced around the matter, and many gays around the world are impatiently waiting for his rhetorical wiggling to stop. For Reverend Warren's excuses himself that he was not one of the leaders or masterminds of the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California's recent election, but merely supports its views. He and you should be acutely aware that mere acquiescence, with spite-filled rhetoric, or toleration of those who speak it, does not rid you of the responsibility of the consequences of what has been said.
As a matter of concrete fact, it was you, Mr. President, who asked the sometimes campaign-handy friend, Reverend Warren, a highly conservative, in many ways a reactionary man, and a homophobe, to invoke the word of the Lord in your and America's behalf on Inauguration Day. The invitation was presumably extended by you so we may all be better able, with the Lord's blessing, to go forward with the full and extremely difficult agenda facing you as our new President, the Congress, and all the American people. But your agenda --- all of it --- is also our agenda, it is Reverend Warren's agenda, we all share it, for we live in a democracy and we are the people. And because we are free and a democracy, the world did until Mr. Bush, largely believe in us and trust in us.
The use of Reverend Warren would be less awkward if there had not been two incidents involving matters of conscience with men of God during your election campaign.
The first incident involving considerable wiggling on your part, Mr. President, was when Reverend Wright was caught on video tape damning America. You being an loyal man, received admiration for not immediately distancing yourself from the Reverend, which eventually needed to be done to win the election.
This matter was complicated when another man of God, Reverend Pfluger, took the same podium as Reverend Wright, to speak on your behalf, and accused Hillary Clinton of being "too entitled" to be President. This time you did not react for a long time, and both Reverend Wright and Father Pfluger had inordinate time to dominate the public airwaves, which left the impression that they spoke with your implicit acquiescence.
Neither of them deserved to share a podium with you. You are elected by us, they are not. Their examples, and now your public defense of Reverend Rick's right to share the podium with you, leave grave questions as to where you really stand in matters of conscience. The first two men said they supported you and you did not, as Peter did when he thrice denied knowing Jesus, ever fully deny their implicit claim to speak in behalf of your moral conscience. The third man of God, Reverend Warren, commends you, the 44th President of the United States of America, elected by millions of us, for your courage and for your willingness to "take enormous heat" by inviting him. Hubris is still alive and well.
The full, soul-trying agenda facing the President --- and getting ever more crowded every day --- is without question the most difficult confronting this great nation since Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to conquer the Depression in 1933 and win World War Two in 1941. We were but 131 million Americans then. FDR and Americans accomplished that in great part because of President Roosevelt's magnificent, inspiring leadership but also in great measure we took our leader up on the challenge.
We are Americans. As our history shows, we can accomplish almost anything if we put our minds to it, and we especially seem to specialize in the impossible. Just ask John Kennedy who asked us to land on the moon within 10 years. And we did. That, too, in Neil Armstrong's modest words, was "a small step," but it will forever remain "a giant leap" in the hearts and minds of all mankind.
President Franklin Roosevelt, like our greatest and most venerated president, Abraham Lincoln, was very careful about his friends, at least those he was seen with publicly or might be associated with in the public mind. And neither of these presidents started off their very first day in office with a needless cross to bear.
At the moment, unhappily few Americans have heard of the upcoming likely issue that may be wrought by Reverend Rick. In fact, many Americans, including most members of our media, if they have even heard about it, choose to ignore or overlook it, and many, as Captain Rhett Butler, AKA Clark Gable said in "Gone With The Wind," frankly, don't give a damn. But as we wish to vociferously argue here, Mr. President, we should give a damn.
One cannot necessarily blame an often dysfunctional, insubstantial, superficial, insufficiently analytical media. Nor can we even readily blame average, scared Americans for not adequately speaking up about the President's moral oversight. We are all so wrapped up by the very real fear of losing our own jobs or our homes to foreclosures, or to lose so many other worthwhile things in these very troubling times, that matters of "minor" morality seem distant and unneeded burdens to contemplate or really complain about openly.
But consider this: 15% of America --- that is, it's gay and lesbian and bi-sexual and transgender community --- and it may well constitute at least 20% or higher because we don't have good, accurate statistics --- is very upset and getting increasingly more upset with Reverend Warren. And now it is getting more upset by the day with you, Mr. President, for not giving Reverend Warren, as Churchill put it when he refused a Knighthood because he had lost the confidence of his people and been voted out of office, "the order of the boot."
As the political media analysts have noted so often, the greater gay community overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama. It went door to door for him. It gave his campaign lots of its money, just as many of the rest of us did, albeit most gays did not have realistic expectations of any real change for themselves. But they dared to hope. Gays are used to being bitterly disappointed and betrayed. Gays wanted to give both themselves and all America, each and every one of us, a new, real chance at moral leadership. What were those words again, real change?
But now to many gays and others, that hope may be short-lived. Mr. Obama's ship of state, with Reverend Rick briefly at the helm for his Andy Warhol 15 seconds or more, and sailing on January 20th, will now, with the President so far refusing to take the helm and reverse course, very possibly revisit the same familiar unpleasant, morally choppy waters that Emile Zola and Henri Dreyfus sailed through in 1898 France. In such dark waters, it was then, as it is now, very difficult to get a confident reading of the horizon, for the clouds often get surprisingly dark.
Predictably, many Americans will choose not to completely embrace our "goody two-shoe statements," thinking them "overdrawn," or "over the top," as is now the faddish term. But to Reverend Warren and especially to you, Mr. President, we say, J'accuse. We say that unless you, Mr. President, hurriedly recant your errant invitation to Reverend Warren --- be it even by some grace-saving political mumbo--jumbo dreamed up by a humble press aide --- you do risk a measure of dishonor, and needlessly. Moreover, by your continued inaction and intractability, Mr. President, you risk shame for America which you and certainly all Americans do not again want for our country. For we have had an abundance of dishonor under George W. Bush and his dishonorable administration.
We dare to venture that Eleanor Roosevelt, as she did when she thought her husband had crossed the line, would have protested to her husband, President Franklin Roosevelt, especially given an identical set of circumstances. For Eleanor Roosevelt was, as Adlai Stevenson said so well upon her passing, "a lady who would rather light a candle than curse the darkness." We dare to hope that the First Lady-to-be, a brilliant and engaged lady, will also, when warranted, protest to her husband, and in doing so, prove to be a moral, steadfast, courageous, gallant First Lady.
So while 15% or perhaps up to 20% or even more of the world will be avidly and expectantly watching and listening to first Reverend Warren and then President Obama, this highly talented President, on television and expecting a magnificent Inaugural address, they may not like very much what they hear first from Reverend Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest, Orange County, California. Gays and straights around the world who know something about Reverend Warren will rightfully view his Inaugural invocation remarks and his very presence with you as very troublesome, Mr. President. Should not the Inauguration ceremony reflect the very best America has to offer?
What then, are Reverend Warren's credentials for his forthcoming Inaugural appearance in taking the Lord's name in vain, and what are your oversights, Mr. President?
1.In addition to being opposed to gay marriage, Reverend Warren opposes reproductive choice and stem cell research.
2.He has proclaimed all three subjects as "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters.
3.He was strongly in support of the odious and immoral Proposition 8 on the recent November California ballot, banning gay marriage, which lamentably passed.
4.In support of Proposition 8, Reverend Warren said, "There is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 per cent of the population." Here he was both morally wrong and factually in error, for while his mistaken 2% surely doth not constitute a gay community, 20%, or 1 in 5 Americans, surely does. But as in the case of some religious leaders, falsity does not seem to unduly bother conscience.
5.Reverend Warren has said that gay marriage "is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken about." He will have to really clarify that remark for us all. And when he does it, as in the case with the old, popular E.F. Hutton stock broker TV commercials, we shall all lean forward to listen to his every word. Warren certainly chose to promote his views by the most powerful media in the world, and if that is not political, what is?
6.Reverend Warren has declared that "those who do not believe in God should not hold public office." The First Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, thankfully vigorously opposes that astounding viewpoint. Since when are certain religious beliefs a prerequisite for holding a public office? At a minimum, the silly remark leaves open such questions as "Whose God?" There is this matter of separation of church and state, Reverend. What do we possibly gain by implicitly forbidding, by our lack of support, more agnostics, let alone atheists, in the halls of Congress, or even, God forbid, in the Oval Office? Must all occupants wear their religion on their sleeves, as Jack Kennedy once asked privately, more in amazement than in shock? We once interviewed the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a battling atheist extraordinaire if there ever was one, on television. She was in the midst of taking her life-long fight to have atheists enjoy the same rights and opportunities as other Americans to whatever court would hear her It was a fight that gays have been forced to experience, and their experiences, as Ms. O'Hair's, has also been with mixed success. Perhaps Ms. O'Hair and Reverend Rick may, after he has sown his dubious blessings here on Earth, some day have a nice chat, joined by a third party, The Man Upstairs, about his interpretation of the Bible. But be careful Reverend Rick, for Madalyn had, as we learned by trying to take her head on, lots of brains, which you, of course, may well argue, God gave her.
On the way to this hoped for get together, may Reverend Warren hopefully take but a quick peek at a key line from John Milton's classic Areopagitica which Ms. O'Hair had, of course, already read by the time we interviewed her. We may presume Reverend Warren and his followers may find this classic polemic on free speech and against censorship readily unsettling, and well they should. In this great work stressing the manifold opportunities available under free expression --- and inherently noting that any idea is dangerous --- Milton asks, "Whoever knew Truth to suffer the worse in a free and open encounter with Falsehood?" Two great American justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, measured each one of Milton's words in formulating their still-current "Clear and Present Danger Doctrine,' that to restrict free speech, it must truly present a clear and present danger.
Finally, Reverend Warren has stated that "The redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage would be like legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy."
For their part, the quick witted, talented, highly energized, well-organized, inter-net armed, inter- connected world gay community is, even as this is being written, becoming fully acquainted with Reverend Warren, Mr. President. Many gays have taken the trouble to read Warren's currently popular" best-selling bromides in The Purpose Driven Life. But at the same time let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the fast- learning gay set does not also view Reverend Warren as a living, breathing insult to the integrity and intelligence of all gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender people everywhere.
Add to that that there are millions of more like-minded, like-acting persons in this world who would gladly and proudly be counted as members of the greater gay community if they were legally and socially permitted to do so. Sadly and somehow oddly, sociologists and demographers have never really gotten an accurate reckoning of how many gays, bi-sexual, and transgender persons there are on this planet. These experts would do well to accurately tabulate and intensively study far more members of this particularly gifted, sensitive community throughout the world. For they will find thousands and thousands of very, very gifted gay souls, many in the armed services of America, some of whom have given their lives for America.
Surely there are gays, just like straights, of average gifts, for as Lincoln said of the Common People, the Lord must have loved common people for He made so many of them." Incidentally, some historians believe that Lincoln acted on gay impulses himself.
A cursory, cultural glance at gays will find many thousands of supremely gifted ones, from Leonardo da Vinci to the powerful and eloquent, openly gay Democratic Member of the House of Representatives, the venerable and powerful Chairman Barney Franks, on whom you, Mr. President --- as irony now would have it ---will greatly depend indeed for your success. Chairman Franks has openly proclaimed that he is gay, and may Providence shine when the television networks zoom in on the Chairman for a close-up while the Reverend speaks.
Barney Franks has said that Reverend Warren's comments comparing same-sex relationships to incest are "deeply offensive, wildly inaccurate, and very socially disruptive."
If only the gay community could at last all come out of the closet into the Lord's broad daylight and be counted and fully activated, and be permitted to be the fully contributing citizens they all yearn to be. But the repressive majority full well has seen to it that they will be deterred. Gays cannot easily espouse their thoughts and exercise their deviant differences in many of the world's 192 countries. For if they do, in many countries they likely will face certain imprisonment, certainly social ostracism in yet more, and outright humiliation in many of the rest when they venture to show their sexual inclination. Gays have inherent characteristics that, by their genes and inheritance and upbringing that ---and we are still debating as to how all the contributing factors work, but we cannot deny that they exist --- gays cannot, will not, and should not change. They certainly should not, to paraphrase Lillian Hellman's wonderful words in another context, ever "fit their conscience to fit the fashion of the times."
After all, what minority, Mr. President, wishes to change its essential nature, certainly not African-Americans or Africans? Jews were blamed and burned at the stake for "causing" the Black Plague in the 1348 and have been persecuted as "Jesus killers" ever since the Crucifixion for the ruination and desecration of nearly everything. Millions of Jews were, and still are, put to humiliation, shame, even horrible deaths for the very crime of being born. Dozens of other minorities can recite their tragedies and will assuredly do so for many decades to come until some day, hopefully, we may come to our collective senses. Many minorities, including gays, historically and to this day, live lives of quiet desperation --- just as many African-Americans did, Mr. President, before your great and glorious election which offered them and all of us a greater measure of freedom to collectively engage in real change.
But the presence of Reverend Warren, near to your side on Inauguration Day, Mr. President, does not give gays --- and millions of straights ---much real hope for historically merited change. In fact, sir, many gays rightfully feel shortchanged for having so earnestly and steadfastly supported you and so do many straights who support gay rights. And more of them, particularly millions of their brothers and sisters around the world, may soon join them in similar, deep disappointment. For as only you are responsible, Sir, they may henceforth be suspicious of you, Mr. President, of what you say, or what you truly believe, of your character and motivations, of what you intend to do for them and for all of us. Suspicion is ugly. And starting on the first day of your term, it is certainly not an auspicious sign of what may come from a new president and his administration.
One is somehow reminded of the great British poet, writer, dramatist and a convicted sodomite, Oscar Wilde, who having been sentenced for the unmentionable sin and waiting to be picked up in a paddy wagon in pouring rain in front of an English courthouse, exclaimed, "If this is how Her Majesty treats her convicts, she does not deserve to have any."
What we will see and hear on Inaugural Day is a President who has a Columbia University undergraduate degree and Harvard law school education and as the internet now loudly proclaims, an I.Q. between 138 to 142. Where, we may ask, with all these blessed advantages, Sir, and being no less a child of Kenya, a son of a White mother, and a product of a cultural melting pot of the wonderful, tolerant peoples of Hawaii --- where and how do you, Mr. President, now propose to use all these blessed attributes on all of our behalves by starting off your term of office in the public company of a man who engenders suspicion. It is of relatively little consequence that you describe your association as befitting your right and his and all of ours to agree to disagree. There will be a lasting impression that this friendship is more one of political convenience and that you are trying to stay above the fray when you should not. Is this not being just another run of the mill politician?
We are a straight couple, the kind that Reverend Warren nominally supports for our devotion to each other and to moral principles --- probably until the moment that he reads our admonition. But we cannot rid ourselves of the conclusion that Reverend Warren's presence at the Inauguration, whatever it's alleged democratic, philosophical benefits to the body politic, is actually very ill-advised. For it is precisely these kinds of petty men who have badly served all religions from time immemorial.
We as a couple have been blessed to have kissed on the cheeks several of our dear gay friends who were dying of AIDS. We held some of them in our harms while they were rapidly and agonizingly on their way to Our Maker.
When many, when they first read Jesus' words, "Love One Another" --- perhaps the greatest three words ever written --- are touched to the very core of their beings. It is very hard to imagine that Jesus as the first Christian would have stood in the way of one gay taking another as his or her husband or wife in a marriage ceremony, be it religious or otherwise.
Many gays would choose a religious ceremony over an essentially barren civil ceremony. Their argument is that a religious ceremony performed by a priest, pastor, or rabbi, male or female, gay or straight, in a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other religious setting with its exalted, beautiful moments, which loving, gay couples wish to share with each other, just as straight couples do, is far superior. Gays have many times experienced such exultation in progressive and obliging cities such as San Francisco, or enlightened states such as Massachusetts, or Connecticut. For those of us who enjoy the embrace and emotional support of a religious community, who are we to deny others the right to be loved without reservation, just as we are, and as Jesus wanted it? For Jesus loved without reservation.
Love does not work with reservation. To argue that sodomy, whether oral or anal, is somehow evil, sinful, or alien to God's will, when and if it is practiced in any setting, be it in marriage or out of it, by gay or straight, is one of the worst forms of ignorance in this violence-ridden 21st Century. Can we not assume that God's love is unlimited? Or is it limited only to married couples who have somehow been consecrated by a conformist state control, urged on throughout much of history by bigoted leaders? You, Mr. President, although you appeared to support gay marriage, deliberately invited a homophobe to your Inaugural. Your dodging the controversy regarding your personal views presumably brought you more and much-needed conservative and evangelical votes. For in order to beget change, the old argument goes, the presidential candidate must first be elected. So one must, this traditional political litany goes further, trade off the morally uplifting for the politically expedient; one must trade it off else one runs the risk of not being elected President. But here, without ever supporting gays and in another but telling context, even your very conservative opponent, Senator John McCain, to his great credit in standing on morally high ground, said essentially he would always rather come down on the side of right rather than be President.
God's love, Mr. President, and Reverend Warren may remind you, is infinite, His love is unbounded, its rapture all embracing, even if we errant, sinful mortals, do not and perhaps never really will comprehend infinity or eternity.
Gay marriage has been practiced openly or secretly since the beginning of time. It follows natural inclination. It was created to legitimize love irrespective of gender or need for reproduction, the one hypocritical and historically approved religious reason for engaging in sex in the first place. And let us not forget that approved reproduction has historically been an approved means of controlling the inheritance of power, to secure wealth and influence for one's progeny. Women have always felt the lash of this argument when they were prosecuted disproportionately for committing adultery. Despite all this sophistry, gay marriage --- more obviously than does straight marriage ---additionally testifies to a positive need for a union between two people, not necessarily a route to power, wealth, or influence. And the existence of gays is omnipresent.
Gay marriage was honored, at times even celebrated, in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt and in other societies. These are easily available facts which are often conveniently ignored. Many conservative Christian evangelicals and many others have historically sided with and harp on the convenient, controlling, post-Constantine Christian notions which have tragically advocated measures of social control to keep "dangerous" human tendencies from allegedly upsetting the body politic. Persons of such anti-gay beliefs have preached and often harshly imposed restrictive views, similar to those of the early Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, as Reverend Warren must be painfully aware, to this day and largely from poor people's hard-earned monies, has spent billions of its dollars to victims in law suits, and still wishes to ignore many of its errant ways. It will not acknowledge that a large number of its priests and nuns are practicing gays and a smaller number, many of whom will never be caught or punished as pederasts, have been and still are on the loose, often without adequate punishment here on Earth. They take out their frustrations and crimes on unsuspecting, innocent children, thousands of them. This has resulted in the bankruptcies of several American Catholic archdioceses. Hypocrisy has its severe price and all churches have had their fair share.
If we compare the gay to the straight community, most gays throughout history decidedly have not raped or pillaged from the poor. Most gays, lesbians, bi-sexual, and transgender folks are, like their fellow citizens, hard-working, God-fearing, law-abiding folks.
But Gays, despite being really no different from the rest of us, and even despite sometimes progressive legislation acknowledging their equal rights, must in the main still lead highly restrictive, painful lives, even in these times. They have been dealt the card of moderation by the majority, with simple daily chores made more awkward by being forced to obscure their natural inclinations and longings, lest they invite discrimination.
Mere sophistry is advanced in the defensive and not in the least convincing argument by Warren's media handler that the minister's views are consistent with his ministry as well as 5,000 years of history, and are also embraced by every religion. To advance the further notion as does the same aide, Larry Ross, that Warren's view is "about being for the biblical definition of marriage, not being against anything else," is an outstanding exercise in sophistry.
To reiterate, marriage is, and always has been, essentially a traditional form of social control, advanced principally by often inhumane religious leaders who advantageously and for the sake of holding on to power, call themselves godly. In fact, in its tragic, great historical context, marriage exists and has existed largely to control women and to a lesser extent, men, and that's just as many allegedly godly leaders want it, on the whole a ridiculous and preposterous
argument.
What, oh heresy, if one proposed instead that rather than open sodomy, marriage be banned? And just as the good Earth tilts at 23 degrees, both of these things changes will someday come to pass. For both, the prohibition of sodomy and the advancement of marriage are currently convenient for many men of God and their followers, but they deny, and always have, logic. And logic, neatly found in reasoning, is mankind's great saving grace other than the eternal majesty of love.
Aristotle said we are rational animals, stressing both words equally. That is why we wear clothes, or else, the historical reasoning goes, all hell would break loose.
But the latter is not the experience of several South Pacific islands, where in some instances, as the progressive American anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict found, everyone may run around naked and open free sex may even be culturally encouraged, an argument that, in part, after several ups and downs, finally found its way briefly into mainstream Western civilization in the mid-1960s. Earlier, great philosophers such as Bertrand Russell were fired from their university posts for arguing it.
To take the argument further, and perhaps strangest and most shocking to us, in some South Pacific societies, jealously is mostly unheard of.
It may be noted here parenthetically that Swedish prisons, which the authors have visited after one of them had himself incarcerated in one of America's toughest prisons incognito, are coeducational. Here uninvited instances of homosexuality are quite low, and rape of either gender quite rare. That is decidedly not the case in American prisons where often on the first night, the already frightened newcomer is greeted with the sounds of fellow inmates excitedly calling "fresh meat" and gang rape can be counted on to follow.
Assuredly if we did not give in to our animal side, and our hormones did not function properly, the species would not last, for it is the primal urges that beget more of us. Godly men worry a good deal about our animal nature, for they have it in themselves and it is distinctly hard to square it with some of the wordings of The Good Book which is also a document vetted by spiritual leaders, despite its glory. That is why often as not in history, priests and pastors have sent unwanted missionaries out on controlling missions, and, alas, their co-working soldiers, contrary to all religious edicts, often plunder, kill and rape with abandon.
To paraphrase Jesus badly and perhaps sacrilegiously, Let he or she among us who has not had gay thoughts cast the first stone. Some of us, surely when we stand before Our Maker, may well even confess to gay or bi-sexual trysts. Why if everywhere on this Earth gay behavior can be beheld, among humans and the animals, why do we restrict it so terribly? And why do we at such terrible cost to our collective souls, put it in its "proper place" where it will, no matter what we do, again raise its inclination, ad infinitum?
Modern marriage of any kind promotes love, not violence. Let us therefore ask a question in a way that even the most reactionary among us can perhaps easily understand: is not sex of any nature, if it is not physically or mentally hurtful or unwanted, far more preferable to violence? For violence is truly obscene in that it takes unto death human beings who were often born in pain and suffering, as the Bible commands, but in glorious joy as many mothers will testify.
These latter thoughts are commonplace among enlightened men and women in Europe and elsewhere in the modern world because their citizen's eyes tend to glaze over at America's puritanical ways. That is another reason why the world community at the Reverend Warren sharing the inaugural podium with the President of the United States of America.
Many who supported Barack Obama still think he is essentially a man of integrity and holds to his many promises. He decidedly does not seem to be a man of small, false, hurtful, backward beliefs. And we may presume that he certainly never meant to be a hypocritical.
We may assume that Reverend Warren and President Obama have read most of each others' books. Both deal with morality. Now, at last, let Reverend Warren show himself as a truly honorable man of God. Let him now gracefully excuse himself from being present with the President on the Inaugural podium when Mr. Obama takes the oath of office and swear on the Good Book to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The question which is causing some of the great consternation and surprise for those who have bothered to look into the background of the Warren-Obama friendship, be it mutually self-serving or genuine, is why a wise and intelligent young President made the choice to have Reverend Warren give the invocation in the first place. For the President knew that this man publicly and implicitly helped to get the notorious anti-gay marriage, infamously legally restricting, gay-bashing Proposition 8 passed in California. Albeit, the measure was passed with some Mormon money, and even with the support of a few Baptist African-American ladies who also should be very ashamed of themselves for their petty, discriminating viewpoints. Proposition 8, as are other bits of modern fascism, was at its core promoted by intolerant religious beliefs and leaders. Worse, it was encouraged by those who, the corner psychiatrist might explain, fear discovery of their sexual dalliances gay or straight, or fear or act on these fears in perverted hatred for their own sexual inadequacies. Or, even worse, they may relentlessly worry that idle sexual thoughts may give in to "perversion." Proposition 8, now for the moment prescribed law until a court declares it unconstitutional --- and one or more courts assuredly will do so --- is ignorant, backward, horrendously immoral and hurtful, as such measures always have been.
One of our dear late friends, the beautiful, engaging Lilo Kahn, saw her daughter, as well as her divorced husband, who was the father of her daughter, along with her then husband, stand in line waiting to be gassed at the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp. The Nazi's managed the murder of all three of Lilo's beloved then and there. But even before the gas chamber doors were fully closed and the clearly audible screams of those inside, who knew their coming fate, were heard, an SS guard magnanimously turned to Lilo, who was close to him and the very next in line to die, and exclaimed, "Well, that's enough for today." Lilo miraculously survived Auschwitz, this beautiful woman, in body and in soul, who always, despite her eternally lasting pain, had a ready, devastating, engaging personality and belief in the good of humankind.
We always admired Lilo for her courage, especially for her courage to love again after her experience. For until the day she died, she flashed her devastatingly genuine, warming smile to the world that had so mistreated her, a smile that lit up the world in all of its darkness. Lilo's smile is the same in measure that many of our gay friends have, for they, too, will genuinely suffer for the rest of their lives from what they see and hear, not so much from being different, which they bare with great dignity, and for which they can do nothing, absolutely nothing. For continually, they suffer from the dashed hope that some day they can marry the person they love --- with or without the blessing of churches. But for now, they grimace, for they are not as tolerated as well as, say, a talented black president of the United States.
Being indiscriminate in her love for all, Lilo told us with tears in her eyes, that she often observed many gay men, wearing the Nazi's pink concentration camp badges, waiting in line in Auschwitz to die in the gas chambers. For the Nazi's wanted these "sub-humans" as they called them, dead, too, despite, as true hypocrites, many in the leadership of the Nazi SA openly practiced homosexuality.
When will all this inhumanity to man stop? It is said that President Obama is a fan of the great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, as was Lincoln. Burns painfully wrote of "man's inhumanity to man." Mr. Obama is often compared to Lincoln, a president who saved our Union and who, some historians actually maintain, may have acted out a gay thought or two himself. Only the president's actions can testify for posterity whether this comparison is merited.
Lincoln was a self-educated man, who admired most the Bible, Shakespeare, and Robert Burns. One can see it in his writings and speeches. Lincoln's Second Inaugural Addresses, has the magnificent, tear-provoking invocation, "With malice toward none, with charity for all . . ."
After taking office, Lincoln in due time, invited the great Afro-American leader, Frederick Douglass, to the White House, the first president to invite a Black man to America's First Home.
But Barack Obama, unless he reverses course, will have the dubious and unhappy distinction of being the first president to invite a homophobe to give an invocation at a presidential inauguration. To millions of gays, this will be akin to ---as our gay friends say so often after being betrayed by someone they trusted, ---" throwing them under the bus."
Realistically, despite these words and those of others, Barack Obama will not likely reverse his decision in the few days left him until he takes the oath of office unless there is a truly deafening cry of protest.
Reverend Warren could save the President from his first, great mistake. He could easily say," I understand, Mr. President, please get someone else." But he likely won't, and the President, despite this and other "J'accuses," cannot realistically be expected to backtrack.
Ironically, when Reverend Warren is through invoking the Lord, he is scheduled to be followed on the podium by the great "Queen of Soul," Aretha Franklin, who, it may be remembered, once sang "Someday, We'll be Free" at a concert for Bill Clinton but not at Bill's inauguration.
Our fight is really not with Rick Warren. There are always Rick Warrens. Their mettle tarnishes with time. Our real fight, our real surprise, our real disappointment, is with Barack Hussein Obama, who seemingly has had a history of continual trouble with men of God who are conveniently armed for the Lord's work with the Good Book, however one twists its words, to do real hurt. And somehow, therefore, unreasoning tradition might say we must simply listen to their words, which may well be badly wrong, tasteless, odious, and stupid. Nonetheless, as the great Justice Louis Brandeis said, their free speech should also be vigilantly protected. But despite its warranted protection, free speech can be dangerously immoral, as Justice Brandeis, and John Milton before him, also knew. But perhaps one should listen to Reverend Warren and learn, just as Lilo Kahn did from the Nazi guard.
Barrack Obama now stands with a favorability rating of 76%, higher than the 75% that George Walker Bush had after 9/ll. What a grand expectation he evokes around the world! But are we --- gay and straight --- minority or majority --- once again going to be disappointed by a president, like Richard Milhous Nixon or George Walker Bush, for whom Americans had, as they always do for presidents, such high hopes and expectations at the start of their terms?
Consider, Mr. President, the admonition of another leader in another time, albeit a despotic leader, Oliver Cromwell, when he shouted to a dissident Member of Parliament: "By the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be wrong."
Better yet, consider the admonition of Edmund Burke, the legendary British statesman who challenged his King and supported the American colonists in their fight for freedom: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
_______________________________________________________________________________
The authors have counseled several world leaders. They are Visiting Scholars at the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley and Visiting Scholars in Politics, Governance and Security at the East-West Center, Honolulu.
_______________________________________________________________________________