NOVEMBER 23, 2009
   Login or create a new account  ?
Join Washington Blade on FacebookJoin Washingtonblade on MyspaceJoin Washington Blade on Twitter!
RELATED STORIES
Choosing Rick Warren was smart politics
Obama’s decision elevates a voice that de-emphasizes condemnation of homosexuality.

What does Warren flap say about Obama?
Let’s hope new president doesn’t feel ‘inclusive’ when making court appointments.

Early disappointment in Obama
Many angry over Warren invocation, lack of gays in Cabinet

 
MOST VIEWED
 
Obama’s first big mistake
He has reached out to Rick Warren, but when will he reach out to gays?

HOME > VIEWPOINT > EDITORIAL

Dec 26, 2008  |  By: KEVIN NAFF  | COMMENTS      Printer Friendly Version

UNLESS YOU CHECKED out really early for the holidays, you’ve no doubt heard that Rick Warren, conservative author of “The Purpose Driven Life” books and pastor at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration next month.

The angry reaction to this insult has been heartening. Obama, with this overture to anti-gay evangelicals who didn’t support him in 2008 and won’t vote for him in 2012, succeeding in bringing about the unity he often speaks about: everyone from Andrew Sullivan to the Human Rights Campaign criticized him.

Sullivan, an early and ardent Obama supporter, wrote, “If anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won’t be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen.”

HRC’s reaction was more startling, given the group’s reticence to criticize Democrats, let alone a Democratic president-elect. And HRC President Joe Solmonese’s anger extends beyond the Warren flap to Obama’s failure to name an openly gay Cabinet member, something that transition team members had heavily hinted would happen in closed door meetings with gay rights leaders.

“We’ve seen appointment after appointment of talented Americans who come from constituencies that are part of this country and that helped gain his election,” Solmonese wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. “Well, we’re one of those constituencies who actually worked and voted for Obama, unlike Warren and probably most of his 21,000 parishioners. Yet, we’re the ones left waiting for some real evidence of inclusion.”

Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) joined the disappointed gay chorus.

“Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage,” Frank said in a statement. “But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.”

FROM BLOGGERS TO activists to politicians, gay voices demonstrated in a unified and loud way that the Democratic Party’s old way of doing business — namely accepting monopolistic levels of gay money and support then delivering zilch for it — is over. The anger unleashed by Proposition 8’s passage is real and isn’t going away anytime soon.

Warren, an outspoken proponent of Prop 8, is James Dobson masquerading as a moderate. A writer for The Nation observed the following after a 2005 interview with Warren: “Lamenting the ‘tyranny of activist judges,’ who obstruct the will of the majority, he evinces no understanding of minority rights or the judiciary’s role in enforcing them. Explaining his views about homosexuality and gay rights, he notes, ‘I don’t think that homosexuality is the worst sin,’ and, ‘By the way, my wife and I had dinner at a gay couple’s home two weeks ago. So I’m not [a] homophobic guy, okay?’”

In an interview posted to BeliefNet, Warren extolled the virtues of ancient traditional views of marriage, conveniently forgetting that women were considered property and men could take as many wives as they wanted. “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage,” Warren said. “I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

So, in Warren’s view, same-sex marriage is akin to polygamy, child molestation and incest. And, in a 2005 interview with CNN’s Larry King, Warren went one step further, blaming gay AIDS patients for contracting the disease. “The question isn’t how did you get it,” he said. “It’s what do you do now? I mean if I’m driving down the street one day on the freeway and I see somebody laying on the side of the road bleeding to death and I go over to them, my first question is, was this your fault? No, I just help the guy.”

Why did Obama choose such a person to deliver the invocation? Where are all the influential gay officials on his team who should be advising him about such matters? Warren’s presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him. There are plenty of affirming religious figures in this country who could ...

Page 1 Page 2 continue reading


email       password


Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

celt
Hagerstown
0
I'm afraid I have to agree with Mr. Sullivan. It's time to sober up.

Posted 12/26/08 - 10:03 AM


ray
washington, DC
0
well,im black and gay and i couldnt care less about Rick Warren - he's just a fat hustler who's using religion to make money like the other tv preachers! Who cares what he thinks about anything? Obama is letting him give an invocation to please the evangelical hillbillies who feel he's shut them out - that's just politics! Besides, arent there bigger things for Obama to worry about, like the economy (for MOST people that should be his first priority anyway)? Or the wars in afghanistan and iraq, neither of which are going that well?

Posted 12/26/08 - 10:44 AM


Steve Charing
Clarksville, Md
0
It's nice to know that Pastor Rick isn't a homophobe because he and his wife had dinner at a gay couple's house. But since he is a strict interpreter of the Old Testament, I wonder if he ate shrimp cocktail or glazed ham at this dinner, or if his wife was wearing a blouse comprised of blended fabrics. Or is it just the man lying down with another man thing that rattles his double chin?

Posted 12/26/08 - 11:35 AM


rpcv84
Laurel, MD
-1
Prior to the election, I asked numerous times that my follow gay voters, who are/were such ardent supporters of every Democratic candidate, answer this to themselves: "What have the Democrats done for me/us lately?" But everybody was still on the Democrat and Obama bandwagon thinking that life as we know it will soon be nirvana. In retrospect, I'm so glad I voted for Bush whose financial contributions to Africa to fight numerous infectious diseases - HIV primarily - are the most that ANY president of EITHER party has done up to now. But, Obama continues to be the messiah to gays...

Posted 12/26/08 - 11:52 AM


rpcv84
Laurel, MD
0
Oh, and by the way, did you watch Pastor Rick's Christmas service on television? I did, and if you didn't, you should find some way to do so. It was beautiful, all-inclusive, and quite moving. I'm sure he'll do just fine delivering the invocation.

Posted 12/26/08 - 11:55 AM


Guinea Pig
0
Yes,well where were the results of this "actual work" that you and other GLBT leaders claim to have done Mr. Solmonese? Prop. 8 passed, an all-inclusive ENDA failed and GLBT people are still getting royally discriminated against and killed while you were too busy greasing palms with corporate America and attending celebrity A-List Black Tie dinners.And now you "leaders" want to use this Warren controversy as an excuse to hide the fact that you all royally dropped the ball on GLBT rights.Had HRC and other community leaders had their act together, this Warren issue wouldn't be such a sore spot

Posted 12/26/08 - 8:00 PM


RCS
0
The true test as to President-Elect Barack Obama's intentions to his gay supporters will be what he does to overturn "Don't Ask; Don't Tell," and to pass ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation in the upcoming year. If he does nothing, gays will know that they have been tossed overboard. Nauseous bigot that Rick Warren is, his being asked to give the invocation at the inauguration won't matter one way or the other if Obama makes good on his commitments to the gay community. It is up to HRC and other groups to keep the pressure on so that he does just that.

Posted 12/26/08 - 10:28 PM


ReasonableDoubt
Washington, DC
0
Quoterpcv84: Oh, and by the way, did you watch Pastor Rick's Christmas service on television? I did, and if you didn't, you should find some way to do so. It was beautiful, all-inclusive, and quite moving. I'm sure he'll do just fine delivering the invocation.

Sure it was.  Just like his rant about "Christian Bigotry" was not an attack on gays standing for themselves in rejection of his dogma.

Inclusive to rpcv84 means Warren said what rpcv84 believes.

Posted 12/27/08 - 1:44 PM


Ridgerider
0
Obama's "first big mistake" is about as big and important an issue, as whether he decides to wear classic or boxerbriefs on any given day. What is important, is why the folks at the HRC don't devote half the effort to actually accomplishing something, that they do to reacting to trivial matters like who gives an invocation at the inauguration. People, you've been around for nearly 40-years and raised and spent over $200 million dollars. Why have you not enacted even one significant, non-AIDS related, federal bill?

Posted 12/29/08 - 3:44 PM


celt
Hagerstown
0
While the Rick Warren incident is important, I think there is another story here that is not getting enough attention. This week Joseph Lowery made it very clear that he, like Obama, supports civil unions--not full marriage equality. At some point the GLBT community is going to have to face the reality that a large percentage of the African-American community will NOT accept any connection between the Civil Rights mvt. and the Gay Rights mvt. Not surprisingly, the foundation of this division are the churches within the African-American community. Let's face it. Religion is the real enemy!

Posted 1/1/09 - 10:07 AM


Mr Chris
0
However Celt, Please remember what you just said is"Not surprisingly, the foundation of this division are the churches within the African-American community"

Everything is the African-American church and people. The Evangelicals are predominately WHITE and will not accept,nor allow Gay Marriage. So where does this leave them?

Homophobia is not defined by race but by ignorance and mind mentality.And obviously this is of all races not just the African-American church, or people

Posted 1/2/09 - 12:33 AM


Spacer
Spacer
Spacer

Washington Blade Window Media CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions
© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy
Advertise with us!