On the Rick Warren Invocation Selection
The announcement that anti-gay bigot and unrepentant theocrat Rick Warren has been selected to deliver the invocation (incidentally, why should there even be an invocation at a government function?) at Barack Obama’s inauguration has generated much (entirely appropriate) indignation in the gay community, among others.
My first hasty stitch, in the form of a tweet last night, was:
I don’t enjoy seeing gay Democrats convulsing over Rick Warren.
But I do enjoy being right.
Democratic Politicians + Gays = Betrayal. Again.
Obama has already thrown gays under the bus, twice, and he’s not even in office yet. Enjoy the next eight years, Human Rights Campaign and Stonewall Democrats.
Meanwhile, so much heat has been directed at the outcome of the decision, that no light is being directed at the (obviously flawed) process that permitted it.
What, exactly, do we know? Best as I can tell, all we know is:
- The decision was made by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
- The membership of said committee (basically the congressional leadership).
- The milquetoast Obama defense of the decision: “Mr. Obama has consistently stressed the need to ‘seek common ground with people with whom we disagree fundamentally.’”
Here’s what we don’t know:
- How were potential invocation deliverers nominated?
- How many were nominated?
- Who, specifically, nominated Warren?
- Were the candidates preemptively vetted by the Obama transition team?
- What kind of debates and discussions were held on the choice?
- Specifically, were any outside opinions solicited on the nominees, either from the Evangelical or LGBT communities?
- Will the transcripts or minutes of those meetings be made public?
My first guess is that gays ought to be demanding Feinstein’s and Pelosi’s heads (remind me again where they both hail from?) rather than Obama’s.
But then I remember that we are talking, not about gays, but about gay Democrats. So they’ll instead seek out another bus to let themselves be thrown under. Perhaps DOMA.
—
For those who, like the insufferably oblivious Ann Althouse, wonder what the big deal is:
You heard that right: You can’t possibly accuse Rick Warren — who equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia, and who calls stripping an insular minority of a fundamental right “freedom of speech” — of homophobia, because he’s actually eaten dinner in gay homes. How enlightened of him.
That was released less than a week ago, incidentally.
Filed under: Gay Rights and Issues, Politics, Society, Religion, Culture Wars
See, I find the fact that he "has gay friends" and has "eaten at their homes" an aggravating factor, not a mitigating factor. If I accepted bread and salt and hospitality from someone and called them friend to their face, all the while calling them the moral equivalent of a child-rapist in public, I would be a person of low character.
I probably don't need to remind you that it was Dianne Feinstein that found Harvey Milk's body after he was murdered by Dan White. Ironic and very very weird. And I am not happy.
It looks as though Obama is the one that chose Warren. Not a committee: http://bit.ly/6Dcb
So complaining directly to the guy at the top is appropriate here.
– better still, why do presidents swear on bibles? Some may argue "tradition," but that very same tradition is at the heart of Warren's bigotry.
[...] On the Rick Warren Invocation Selection12.18 [...]
Obama isn't the only politician to support human rights when addressing gay americans.
But Obama is the only politician who went to Saddleback told those people that he supports human rights for homosexuals.
He has never supported gay marriage per se, (only civil unions) so the idea of "betrayal", by a man who has zero power at the moment seems a bit of a stretch.
I think your anger is well founded and I support your expression of it to both Warren and Obama. If instead of Saddleback Obama had gone to a forum hosted by David Duke or Hamas – the media coverage would be much different.
But I worry that completely immoderate anger over what is really just symbolism, we are weaking our hand from the rational left/blogs for the force needed when legislation, aka reality, comes up for debate.
I'm not saying don't speak out, I'm cheering you for it. But I'm sick of being right but losing when the legislation is passed, that is the betrayal I fear.
The mention of "civil unions" reminds me: all couplings committed under municipal &/or state code should be civil unions. The gov't should be out of the "marriage" business entirely; let the churches & such have it, have the word. Meanwhile, the state shall certify the union of any two qualifying (homo sapien, of legal age, not currently wedded to another ("The Al Martin Clause")) individuals, & confer on the union the rights of shared property, medical visitation, etc. If a couple wants further to avow their weddedness with a ceremony under the auspice of a priest, rabbi, minister, imam, whoever, fine, but the strictures of some religious orders against a universal marriage right should not be used to determine civil law.