Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at Inauguration

[sauu4equality]

Just wanted to let everyone know about this. My gut reaction was to feel punched in the gut again and lose all hope for gay rights. But Rick Warren in his interview with beliefnet did not oppose civil unions. He is a step up from Dobson and even his mind seems to be changing a bit. However, he is still very anti-gay and I feel unfit for this role. I can still see this as a political move, but someone is going to feel very betrayed by the end of Obama's presidency. Now, fundies and moderate Christians who oppose full equality are going to be angry if Obama attempts to gain full equality for GLBT folks. And we are already planning on being upset because he likely will not even seek civil unions. As someone who is opposed to any rigid view of religion and is disgusted by people with "answers", having a Christian-Exclusionist deliver the Invocation is just annoying and, in my mind, un-American. A universalist should always be chosen for this honor.

[antiochian]

So, Obama's tryin' to smooch up to the religious powers-that-be? That's just what we need. Get the nutty religious leaders into the Presidential circle, and we're JWF. Had enough of that with Bush, thank you.

[Matt Algren]

You beat me to it sauu. FWIW, here's my post on the subject, with contact links for the committee members and Obama's LGBT liason for the transition team.

antiochian, this was decided by a committee of House and Senate leadership (again with the linky), not the Obama team. Frankly, it has John Boehner's fingerprints all over it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan today 12-17-08 (see his blog at www.andrewsullivan.com) also expresses his disappointment about Rick Warren having a prominent role at the inauguration.

I think Obama's people are making the assumption that Rick Warren is a fit representative of spiritual people in America, and that he is not viewed as excluding some Americans as "second-class." This is obviously a mistake on Obama's part. We ought to let him know.

I'm not at all opposed to protesting the new administration. I voted for him and look forward to the end of the Bush dysfunctional dictatorship, but we need to keep the pressure up on the new administration to do the right thing--there will be others pressuring for the wrong thing for sure!

Steven Webster

[Unmasked]

The cards predicted anger and betrayal this election season. I was hoping that it would be just Prop 8 and similar ballot initiatives that lead to those feelings. We'll have to wait this out. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's a play to the religious (I think either Rick Warren is going to lose favor or Obama will gain a modicum of good will at my school, it'll be a nice break from "die baby killer muslim die"), or maybe we've been had. I hope we haven't. The right to have Uncle Sam out of our bedrooms is an important one. It's creepy, having him watch like that.

[Daniel]

Why? He tried this same kind of thing during his campaign. And it was offensive then. And it's still offensive now. It's the same situation all over again. Obama didn't 'get' it that time, and he doesn't seem to be 'getting' it now.

The Obama people are released this some talking points.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/obama-camp-rele.html

My response? I agree with Hilary Rosen, who made some cogent remarks last night on CNN to Anderson Cooper.

"First the glibness, that, well it's just a bunch of gays being unhappy that people don't agree with them, is wrong. You know, (at) one time the Bible was used to justify slavery. If this was a preacher, out there, using more weapons against African-Americans we wouldn't even be having this conversation, so second of all, the fact that we're even having a conversation, means that this is a mistake in choice. This is a day when people are to be brought together. There are hundreds of preachers across the country with stature and thoughtfulness and other ways to bring this country together on an inauguration day for the new president. That's the choice he should have made."

There is a disconnect going on. Having the KKK on stage would be offensive to blacks, right? So how is this any difference? Here you have a man (Warren) who believes that marriage and God's favor are reserved for straight people. The KKK believe that marriage and God are reserved for white people.

Bigotry, no matter if it is about race of sexual orientation, is- at the end of the day- bigotry!

If Obama wants to be inclusive, then he can do that behind the scenes, where this kind of thing is supposed to happen. He has his rights. We don't have ours. And for him to parade someone who doesn't want us to have our rights before the nation is not inclusiveness, it's an affirmation of the status quo.

When did our civil rights- or lack of them- become a talking point? Obama just isn't getting it here, putting out the thought we should all play nice and get along- 'you have your preacher and I have mine...what the problem?' He may think he is above all this. But guess what? This is going to bite him in the ass.

The problem Mr. President Elect, is that you have arrived at the table, and we are not happy with the scraps you can throw our way. We aren't dogs. And you aren't the master.

And we will have civil rights with or without you.

[Daniel]

Obama Selects Evangelist for Invocation

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: December 17, 2008
Barack Obama has selected the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a role that positions Mr. Warren to succeed Billy Graham as the nation’s pre-eminent minister and reflects the generational changes in the evangelical Christian movement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us...8inaug.html?hp


The nation's pre-eminent minister?

So there you have it.

This isn't a case of 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'. What I mean by that is that the minister who supports full equality- and is participating- isn't getting the 'pre-eminent' positioning here. Are we talking about him? No.

What are we talking about? Warren. And his anti-gay views. And Obama's myopia.

Wanna define yourself? Have people like Warren speak for you by placing them in front of the camera's and 'invoking' God. That'll do it. Will anyone be reading your talking points...blah blah blah?

Nope.

Ok...the buzzer just went off. Times up. All in favor of protesting raise your hand!

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ok...the buzzer just went off. Times up. All in favor of protesting raise your hand!

I'm wondering how loud the silence will be during the prayer. Maybe a couple thousand little ipods with little speakers playing Diana Ross's "I'm Coming Out"? Aretha will be there; how about R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

And I'm not sure religious conservatives will be jumping up and down over this any more than we are. As much as Warren toes the line politically, there's long been frustration within religious circles because he doesn't teach exactly what they want.

[sauu4equality]

One advantage to this pick is that Christianists (Andrew Sullivan's word as far as I know) can no longer say that Obama's appointment was not ordained by "God." Because their holy man will be blessing his Presidency. Now, they have to work to make this country better too. And economic prosperity will once again breed progressive public policy. I find it very interesting that all of these people (the recent thwarted NAE VP and Rick Warren and even the LDS) seem to be rhetorically supporting civil unions. Well, fellas, I gotta see it to believe it. You want to make an equal institution to marriage? Then do it. We all know this is lip service, but lip service is what convinces people to change their minds. And what happens in country's that have civil unions for a while? They get Gay Marriage. Something I think conservatives truly fear, but we have their word...and maybe to some Christianists that still means something.

[keltic63]

Washington Blade article about this topic.

and btw, the "stephenclark" who made the first comment is not me. I'm "Steven"

[keltic63]

aaaaaaacccckkkkk!!!!!!!!!



Obama's digging himself a big hole!

Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. He also said it's "no secret" that he's a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians - and he said that support will continue.

[Daniel]

From the article posted by Steve...

The president-elect says a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural festivities.

Agree. The First Law of Holes is....STOP DIGGING!

This has the making of a Clintonian Mistake. Remember Don't Ask Don't Tell? That started in the first weeks of Clinton's administration. And here is Obama, not even in office yet, stumbling on gay rights from the get go.

So....gay rights have been reduced to a viewpoint.

Nice. Nice nice.

How about we reduce civil rights for blacks to a viewpoint?

All hell world break loose if we did that!

[keltic63]

I've made contact with the transition team:

I'm writing to say that I'm heartily disappointed with the recent selection of Rick Warren to participate in the Inauguration Ceremony. I am a gay man, legally married in MA recently, and have given my support to the Obama campaign and election. This choice of Warren is like a slap in my face. Inviting Warren to offer a prayer, when he has compared my loving relationship to child abuse is a huge insult, and shows a disregard for the community that rallied behind Obama. To brush this off as a symbol of "coming together" on social issues, is to say that my life, my rights, and the question of my equality is open for debate by this new administration. Civil Rights for gay and lesbian people is not simply a social issue, a concept to be debated, it is a reality that so many of us have to live, and often endure, everyday of our lives. Please, reconsider the inclusion of Rick Warren in this Inauguration. Stop digging in your heels, and listen to the cries of the people who helped you get elected!
Steve Clark

I encourage you to do the same. I had trouble getting the "contact" page to load. I couldn't link to that page, perhaps you'll have better luck.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I've made contact with the transition team:



I encourage you to do the same. I had trouble getting the "contact" page to load. I couldn't link to that page, perhaps you'll have better luck.

Remember to contact the members of the Inauguration Committee as well. Also the LGBT liason to the transition team. Names and links at my blog.

[sauu4equality]

Dear Mr. President-Elect Obama,
While you have been very friendly to gays and lesbians in the United States of American and made use of our support in the election, it has come to my attention that your view of gays and lesbians is biased and unscientific. You said recently that you would use facts, evidence and science in your presidency to make decisions about policy. I know you don't believe it (obviously by your anti-gay marriage rhetoric), but the vast majority of gays and lesbians are born that way. While there may be some instances where a person can be attracted to both males and females (bisexuals), scientific evidence clearly shows that gays and lesbians exist very early in life. There is strong evidence to suggest a genetic connection to male homosexuality.
If you want to believe that polygamist relationships are somehow morally equivalent to positive gay and lesbian relationships go ahead. But I think some of the women oppressed by the now renounced LDS policies might have something to say about that. The decision to outlaw polygamy was made because women were being exploited. No exploitation or coercion exists in a good, loving gay or lesbian relationship. Incest has been shown to cause birth defects and be very unhealthy for children born of incestuous relationships. Child molestation shows no correlation to male homosexuality. All scientific evidence (respected, peer-reviewed scientific evidence) shows that gays and lesbians make excellent parents and deserve all of the same protections as straight couples/parents. I understand your trying to be a centrist and a unifier, but the idea that someone that equates being gay to incest and rape is a good choice for one of America's religious leaders is asinine. Reverend Warren’s view of gay people has been used by many to commit violent acts against them. There is also evidence that this view has severely damaged gays and lesbians and has forced us into the dark corners of society. So, I ask you to be true to your word and believe in "science" rather than radicals that want to control society's values. Propelling Reverend Warren to an acceptable choice for a religious leader only further condones violence against gays and lesbians.
Just because you do not believe that two people that love each other and enter into a partnership is not a marriage does not give you the right to call gay and lesbian couples something different than straight couples in the court of law. So, while it is obvious that you view gays and lesbians as perverts, but respect the right of these perverts to have their relationships in a free society, it is important that you support our right to see ourselves as people deserving of respect. Please, review respected scientific journals if you need help or inspiration in letting go of your religious biases.

[Matt Algren]

How do you long-timers do it? I've been out just over a year and I feel like I've been beat up lately.

[sjbouza]

Mr Obama is defending his choice of Rev Warren for the Inauguration...

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

In his defense I do see his point, however, I still am a little ticked off at him. Obama could have looked at how this would play out to the LGBT community. Maybe he did and he is trying to bring all sides to the table to get a strong dialog going. Let's hope that is what is happening. I would hate to have Reve Warren be the next "little bird on the window sill" like Bush had with Dobson.

Only time will tell. I hope and pray that he does keep his promises to the LGBT community. If not then I see a large loss of support from us in the future. Is he willing to take that risk? Is he going to pull everything out of his hat just at the end of his first term so he can say, "see I did what I promised, now support me again and I will get more done."? Or is he going to pull the, "well I just didn't have the time to get it done this term, next term I promise!"?

We shall see and time will show how much his word is worth, especially to us in the LGBT community.

Peace,
Scott

[tdogg]

Now, Obama would have really made a statement for inclusion if he had selected Bishop Gene Robinson to participate instead of Warren. I'm just slightly less excited about watching the Inauguration than I was prior to this announcement. I'm still holding out hope for real 'change' but time will tell.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I just watched PBS's Newshour. There was a substantial conversation including Harry Knox of HRC about the invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration.

One of the remarks made about Warren was that he was invited because he has supposedly taken the place of Billy Graham as "America's Pastor." My feeling is that Billy Graham never made the kind of harsh anti-LGBT statements that Warren has made and that he never took public, political stands against LGBT persons.

Obama has not made bad points justifying the invitation, but I think it is a sad commentary on the state of the Christian faith in this country that Rick Warren is now deemed to be "America's Pastor." I think there is all the more reason for Soulforce to press for dialogue with Warren (as they did earlier this year).

Steven

[tymejumper]

Obama picking Warren is tantamount to McCain choosing Palin. It's also as sucidal a move!