Sadly, for those of us involved in the effort to overturn Prop 8 in California, this week brought a big disappointment, in the form of Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren was instrumental in the passage of Proposition 8. He has expressed deeply prejudiced views towards homosexuals. Specifically, he has likened gay marriage to incest and pederasty. And unfortunately, his opinion carries a lot of weight in California and throughout the evangelical community all over the United States, thanks to his best-selling Christian self-help books. I disagree wholeheartedly with Steve Waldman of BeliefNet in his defense of Warren, but I agree completely with his assessment that some on the left confused Warren's "temperamental with political moderation".
Perhaps because I grew up in the world of Evangelical Christianity, Warren never had me fooled for a second. In my opinion he's just another Jerry Falwell, hiding behind his jolly, innocent-looking coutenance. He perpetuates fear-based and hateful stereotypes and myths about homosexuals from his bully pulpit, and that does absolutely nothing to move the sociopolitical climate in the United States towards inclusiveness and equality. So-called leaders like Warren are stubbornly, decidedly not part of the solution, and you know how the saying goes...
It is for that simple reason that I am deeply dismayed, even appalled, that Obama would choose to include him in the events of January 20th.
The argument that Obama, in choosing Warren, is somehow reaching across the aisle or promoting what Waldman calls "spiritual bipartisanship" is utter nonsense. Nobody ever suggested the ridiculous notion that Martin Luther King Jr. give the likes of Bull Connor a "seat at the table". MLK Jr. had clarity of purpose; he saw that Connor and his ilk were the very people who were standing in the way of progress. He moved the cause of civil rights forward in spite of such people. Like Sarah Harmer sang, You must decide/if you will die or grow. It is time for America to evolve beyond this ridiculous, fear-based bigotry. Homophobia is so 20th century.
Yes, I do understand that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a civil rights leader, not a politician. Obama's job is to represent all Americans. Even people like Warren and his sheep. So, I suppose that there's a certain generosity of spirit in extending an olive branch such as this, to those who are flat-out unwilling to extend the same courtesy to the LGBT community. A wrongheaded choice, because it lends more legitimacy to someone whose agenda should not be legitimized, but perhaps done with the best of intentions. That would be a classic liberal mistake, after all.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, had this to say: "It's hard to begin a ceremony aimed at bringing the country together by giving the microphone to someone fresh off a campaign in which he was determined to take away rights." Well-put, Mr. Wolfson.
Unfortunately, there is another possible explanation for Obama's choice of Warren. John Cloud of Time may be correct when he compares Obama to Richard Russell Jr., another thoughtful, tolerant-sounding politican...
Christopher Hitchens ponders the matter while delving into Warren's roots in a recent article at Slate:
Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.Only time will tell.
Rufus Wainwright's Going to a Town from his album Release the Stars gives voice to the weariness, sadness, frustration and resentment that I'm feeling right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment