BY TAYLOR MARSH
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my
sister’s inauguration night party — the one for which she was preparing Obama
Punch — has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail
and word of mouth, that Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural
invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister,
not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She’s gay. She is — or was —
a committed Obama supporter. [...] – Richard
Cohen
Mike Rogers turned into Rick Warren’s worst nightmare yesterday. He presented
himself and his community as what they are: a mature, sensitive and intelligent
constituency that is much more powerful than some fringe group, which is how
Warren wants them seen. Out of the gate, Rogers makes the salient point that
Warren has already scrubbed the Saddleback website due to the heat they’ve
gotten over Warren’s lack of sensitivity on civil rights, so it’s already a victory for his community. Rogers appeared tolerant
and even reached out.
On the other hand, representing the religious side, Rev. Eugene Rivers appeared strident, even shrill, as well as the intolerant, abusive, divisive one in the debate, which was seen through his insulting
judgment of Obama’s pick of Warren, which has hurt many more than just the gay community, though they have owned this story, for which they deserve a standing ovation. Contrary to Rivers’ rhetoric, this
is not a “pseudo controversy” that has been “fabricated”
by the “anti-religious left.” Seriously, could this reverend be any
more condescending? Many black religious leaders across this country have been
responsible for promoting homophobia akin to Warren, so let me just say that
I’m not surprised. Their own culpability in ignoring the AIDS epidemic has been
reported time and again, costing the black community dearly, which many were forced to admit publicly to their shame. Rivers’ response is something I’ve come to expect from
religious “leaders” representing organized institutions. Because I
find Warren completely unacceptable to give the invocation at a Democratic presidential
inaugural, I am automatically called the “anti religious left.” Nothing
could be further from the truth. But I’ve been insulted before by Barack Obama’s religious lectures, so it’s again not shocking that the defenders of his Warren decision would do it as well.
The stridency of Reverend Rivers was startling. It’s something you’d expect
from The Gay, right?
But Rogers really turned the table on Rivers when he suggested Warren privately
sit down with the leadership of the lesbian and gay community. Doubting the importance of Warren sitting down with “your particular crew,”
slapped Rivers at the end of the interview, was a perfect exclamation point
on the divisive nature of Warren’s apologists, but also of the disrespect of
religious leaders in this country who are losing their grip on what it means
to be Christian.
Oh, and one last thing. If you’re going to take your lessons on this matter
from Melissa
Ethridge, please check your criteria for being informed. Ms. Ethridge didn’t
even know who Rick Warren was until he was vaulted to the invocation spot at
Obama’s inaugural, something that will stain the event for many of us. Segue
to Feministing (h/t april):
You were just hustled by a member of one of America’s oldest fraternities
of snake-oil salesmen: the slick-talking preacher. I’m sorry to have
to tell you this, because it’s clear that you both want to sincerely
move forward into a new era of change with a spirit of openness, trust, and
respect for the differences and disagreements that inevitably divide any group
of 300 million people. You want to believe that Rick Warren really likes you,
really likes gay people, really wants peace and equal rights for everyone
as much as you do. I’m sorry — it’s just not true. He acted
as if he likes you. Maybe he really does at some level. But that doesn’t
change his job, and part of his job is to do things to hurt your family and
families like yours. [...]
That Obama would waste this capital on the likes of Warren in order to reach
the evangelical community not only shows Obama’s arrogance in ignoring a fundamental
issue of Democratic politics, but his willingness to insult the people who put
him where he is today, and I’m not just talking about The Gay.
Disallowing women’s civil rights or that women can lead churches,
including becoming priests, inviting them into the national conversation on
television shows as well, is just another way people like Warren and Rivers
legitimize the patriarchal foundation of organized religion, which simply must be re-envisioned for the 21st century. It’s why, as Rogers states,
people like Warren and Rivers will soon be in the minority in this country.
Young people get it. It’s the old guard (and their apologists) that is keeping divisiveness alive.
That President-elect Obama is not only sanctioning it but reaching out to elevate it and legitimize it is not simply a symbol of supporting this old guard
line. It’s propping up the very bedrock of spiritual conservatism, which just happens to be the foundation of the Republican party. At some point a Democratic leader must summon the courage to challenge the fundamental divisiveness of religious bigotry, not cloak it in the language of “agree to disagree” on the altar of “reaching out.” Anyone who was hoping it would be Obama that would summon this courage will meet January 20th all dressed up and no place to party. Just ask Richard Cohen’s sister. She’s not alone.
However, the bigger problem for Obama is that the Warren disaster is now being compared to Obama’s Rev. Wright issue. Nothing is deadlier for the new president and he has no one to blame but himself.
[...] Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama’s preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist. … – Richard Cohen
Comments are closed.