Rick Warren Antidote? "Partnered" Gay Bishop Gets Last-Minute Addition to Program

The Inauguration Committee has announced that Reverend V. Gene Robinson, a gay Episcopal Bishop, will deliver the invocation at a "kick-off" inauguration event scheduled for Sunday. The announcement comes after Obama received a barrage of criticism for choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing-in ceremony. Warren has equated abortion with the Holocaust, and he treats as moral equivalents same-sex marriage, incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

What Does Dissenting Justice Think: Well, the move certainly earns style points in the "paying attention" and "let's kiss and make up" categories. It is quite commendable, and it certainly sounds better than the initial response by Obama, who instructed his critics to stop acting "disagreeable."

But it loses some substance points because it reduces GLBT issues to a simplistic equation: 1 Heterosexist Reverend + 1 Openly Gay Bishop = 0. It comes from the same logic that Warren employed to defend his controversial statements by revealing that he has "gay friends" (who apparently include Melissa Etheridge) and by discussing his work to prevent AIDS in Africa -- even though the overwhelming majority of cases of HIV transmission in Africa result from heterosexual sex.

I'm not going to fuss over this (anymore). Even HRC, the author of an open letter condemning Warren's presence, praises the decision. Perhaps the largest GLBT rights organization even had a hand in negotiating the outcome. A "source close to the transition team" (I'm getting tired of the cloak and dagger routines), however, denies any connection between Robinson's presence and the flap over Warren. Maybe it really is a coincidence that the announcement comes just days before the event will take place. Regardless, I have decided to save my battles for policy -- where someone will inevitably lose. I have said enough about Warren already.

PS: If you thought you had already reached your Lincoln peak -- the event will take place at the Lincoln Memorial.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Sorry, Adam and Steve: If You Get Married, We Must Allow the Smith Triplets to Wed Each Other As Well!

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Obama's decision to invite Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has sparked heated debate. Many GLBT activists and other liberals oppose the invitation because Warren has made negative comments concerning gay rights and abortion.

During one interview, Warren likened same-sex marriage to incest, statutory rape, and polygamy. He also compared abortion to the Holocaust. Warren's participation in the inauguration has angered liberals who find his views antithetical to the change they seek through Obama.

Warren, Proposition 8 and GLBT Vulnerability
Warren was an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8, a recently enacted amendment to the California constitution that defines marriage in heterosexual terms. The passage of Proposition 8 caused a lot of angst among GLBT activists, many of whom naively believed the measure would fail given the overwhelming support for Obama in the state.

Proposition 8 reverses a ruling of the California Supreme Court which held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. Consequently, GLBT people feel particularly stung because a majority of California voters callously decided to deprive them of newly obtained and hard-fought rights.

Viewed in light of this recent history, Obama's inclusion of Warren in his inauguration has probably generated more outrage than it would have normally caused. To many GLBT people, Warren represents the painful status quo, not the progress that Obama has so frequently promised.

Obama's Thousand Points of Light
Obama and his supporters have pushed back against his critics. Obama defends the inclusion of Warren in the inauguration as part of his effort to reach across the aisle and include all voices at the table:

I've . . . said . . . that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. . . .[W]e're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere . . . where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated.

Although Obama's explanation sounds like an amicable gesture, his public disassociation from Reverend Wright, his controversial minister of 20 years, undermines the credibility of his professed tolerance for "noisy and opinionated" viewpoints. Granted, he was a longtime member of Wright's church, but once Wright became a political liability, Obama let him go.

But even assuming the sincerity of Obama's comments, Warren's participation in the inauguration does not enhance the "diversity" of viewpoints because, stripped of their more colorful elements (e.g., comparing same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia) Warren's comments represent mainstream perspectives on gay rights -- including those views that Obama himself embraces.

Same-Sex Marriage and Popular Opinion: Warren's Views Already at the Table
Although Obama defeated John McCain by a 20-point margin in California, a slight majority of voters in the state cast votes in favor of Proposition 8. Outside of California, however, the public strongly disagrees with same-sex marriage; a growing number, however, favor other measures such as "civil unions."

A CBS poll released in June finds that only 30 percent of Americans favor legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Another 28 percent favor "civil unions," while 36 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex intimate relationships. The poll shows the greatest level of support for same-sex marriage since 2004 when CBS began surveying public opinion on this issue. The paltry number of Americans who endorse same-sex marriage actually represents an improvement over the recent past.

Public opinion on this subject varies slightly with political party affiliation, but strong majorities of both major parties oppose same-sex marriage. The poll finds that only 36 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Similarly, only 34 percent of independent voters support same-sex marriage. Other major polling data confirm these results

Given the results of public opinion polls, it should not surprise readers that no major presidential candidate supported same-sex marriage. Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and all of the GOP candidates stated their opposition to same-sex marriage, although the Democrats supported civil unions. Advocates of Proposition 8 made robocalls that used Obama's public statements expressing his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Remarkably, Obama has stated that he opposes same-sex marriage and laws like Proposition 8 that ban same-sex marriage.

Obama, Warren, and the vast majority of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike -- all oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Accordingly, Warren's participation in the inauguration does not represent political diversity or a noble effort to reach across the political divide as Obama and his supporters claim. Warren represents mainstream discriminatory viewpoints, rather than outsider perspectives. With Warren and Obama united on same-sex marriage, Warren cannot represent difference. He does differ from Obama on choice, but GLBT protests prompted Obama's defense of Warren.

The True Diversity: Reverend Joseph Lowery
By all accounts Joseph Lowery is a champion of civil rights with a very long history in the struggle for justice. Lowery will deliver the benediction at Obama's inauguration. Obama has cited to Lowery as proof that he seeks a diversity of views. In other words, Lowery offers a counter balance to Warren.

Although Lowery is an antidote to Warren in many ways, his support for same-sex marriage remains unclear. Most websites have simply repeated the same description of Lowery -- portraying him as a champion of gay rights and same-sex marriage. The web descriptions validate his support for gay people becoming clergy and their entitlement to legal equality and human rights. But the popular reports on his record do not reveal definitive support for same-sex marriage. Here is the full quotation that informs most of the reporting on this issue:

And in 2004, he told ABC News he supported same sex marriage: "When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody."

This comment does not establish Lowery's unequivocal support for same-sex marriage. Obama himself advocates equality and human rights but disapproves of same-sex marriage, and Warren says he does not want the law to deny "rights" to people, but he refuses to support the "redefinition" of marriage. Regardless, Lowery has a longer and deeper record of progressive activism than Warren.

Does Lowery's presence neutralize Warren?
Many of Obama's supporters have argued that Lowery's presence should neutralize liberal concerns over Warren. Although I believe that Lowery's participation certainly helps to stabilize things, the assertion that the two men's participation in the inauguration will create a politically neutral result is not without complications.

Some harms are so great that ordinary mitigating gestures cannot remedy them. Because most of the country, including Obama, oppose same-sex marriage, Lowery's presence alone cannot counteract GLBT fear of majoritarian discrimination. Furthermore, Warren's comments go beyond typical opposition to same-sex marriage. Relying upon pernicious anti-gay stereotypes, Warren links gay relationships to incest, polygamy and pedophilia. The embrace of such deeply homophobic stereotypes probably injures GLBT people more than mere political or religious opposition to same-sex marriage. It is hard to imagine Lowery counteracting the negative effects of Warren's words.

Also, the recent bruising GLBT people received from the passage of Proposition 8 means that Warren's participation will stoke their sense of political vulnerability. Because Obama shares Warren's position on the subject, many gays and lesbians now fear that he will abandon them on other issues, such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Politically, he could probably do so without adverse political consequences, given the pervasive public opposition to or tepid support of gay rights.

From Poetry to Prose: Implementing Policy After Aretha Sings
Although it is highly likely that Warren will remain a participant in the inauguration, this situation has sparked a healthy debate among liberals about how Obama's "change" might look. Gays and lesbians were already mobilized over Proposition 8, and they are even more vigilant as a result of Obama's decision to include Warren in the inauguration. Although many liberals will ultimately accept Obama's desire to have many viewpoints at the table, actual policy decisions will require concrete choices that cannot always reflect the views of all people. If the inclusion of Warren indicates that Obama will adhere to his centrist and safe politics on gay rights and other causes, then his administration will continue to experience conflicts with liberal and progressive advocates.

A Recent Popular Post on Dissenting Justice:

Separate and Unequal Public Schools: "Liberal" Blue States Have Worse Records Than "Dixie"

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?

Ruben Navarrette's Flip-Flop: Wrong to Criticize Obama on Warren, Fine to Criticize Obama on Clinton

I became familiar with Ruben Navarrette during the Democratic primaries. He was one of the few Latinos (among the few Latinos who are leading journalists at major papers) who clearly did not like Hillary Clinton.

Navarrette wrote several articles praising Obama and criticizing Clinton. During the general election coverage, however, he wrote about McCain with a somewhat sympathetic eye, even encouraging Latinos to consider voting for him in one article.

After the election ended and Obama began selecting members of his Cabinet, Navarrette wrote a scathing critique of Obama's decision to choose Clinton as Secretary of State. Navarrette believed that Bill Richardson should have received the position instead.

Navarrette challenged Obama's decision to appoint Clinton, arguing that she "doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs . . . [and] she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. . . ." Navarrette also asserts that because Latino support for Obama was critical for his victory, "they deserve better" than the "parting gift" of Secretary of Commerce -- the position Richardson has accepted.

Although Navarrette passionately criticized Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, he has taken a noticeably different approach towards GLBT and pro-choice advocates who criticize the inclusion of Rick Warren in Obama's inauguration ceremony. Navarrette argues on CNN.Com that these groups should step back and accept Obama's wishes:

This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.

It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.

Interesting. Navarrette's assertion that Warren's protestors should respect Obama's wishes could have even more force regarding whom he selects for his Cabinet. Because presidents works very closely with Cabinet members, they should have a high degree of discretion to choose candidates they prefer. Also, had Latinos protested Obama's "snub" of Bill Richardson as Navarrette argues they could have legitimately done, this would have constituted the very in-fighting among the Left that Navarrette now condemns. I do not see these situations as materially distinct. Am I missing something?

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

Normally, I would not care about the choice of an inauguration speaker. In fact, I rarely even watch inauguration ceremonies. I am pretty sure I watched Clinton's inauguration in 1993; I am more certain that I did not watch either of the Bushes'. But the more I listen to Rick Warren's anti-gay positions and to Obama's and his supporters responses to Warren's critics, I become increasingly troubled by his role at the inauguration.

True to form, Obama defends picking Warren on the grounds that he wants to end divisions and provide a seat for everyone at the table despite differences. In the abstract, this sounds like a great operating principle. Reduced to a simplistic maxim, the argument says: "I want to reduce strife and enmity." This goal is as unassailable (and vague) as wanting to improve the quality of schools, prevent crime, and end hunger. It is one of those ideas that people of all political perspectives can embrace, at least in the abstract.

But one's ability to feel safe extending his or her arm across the metaphorical aisle depends upon the level of vulnerability that person experiences in society. For some people, forging a particular link could feel dangerous rather than noble.

Consider, for example, the many ways Obama could have used the moment of his inauguration to reach out to people who do not share his stated viewpoints. Instead of picking Warren, Obama could have chosen one of the many otherwise benevolent ministers who believe that "a woman's place is in the home" or who subscribe to conservative views on race and racial justice. If Obama had invited an outspoken opponent of racial and gender equality to speak at his inauguration, the choice would have raised outcry from a broader share of the population. And knowing that Aretha Franklin would entertain the masses after a racist opened the ceremony would not provide sufficient cover. The two things do not cancel out each other.

I am also certain that many of the white liberal heterosexual males who have rushed to defend Warren would likely have taken a different view if the choice undermined their own comfort level. Suppose Obama had picked Minister Louis Farrakhan instead of Warren. Farrakhan, like Warren, has engaged in outreach to poor people. Nonetheless, many of Warren's defenders would probably view Farrakhan, who has made insensitive comments regarding whites and Jews (and gays), as a substantial departure from Obama's message of "change." Because Warren's ideological positions do not threaten the well being of most white heterosexuals, however, many of them view gay and lesbian criticism as mere "whining." But this is a classic response to criticism by disparaged social groups.

Ultimately, Obama's positions on gay and lesbian rights matter much more than Warren's five minutes of fame. But if Obama's election warrants celebration and attention due to its symbolism, then Warren's role at the inauguration matters (although less significantly) due to its message as well. Warren, to use the analogy Obama applied to Reverend Wright, represents the nice, caring and giving uncle who, during family meals, makes "interesting" arguments about gay rights, such as the assertion that same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent of incest, statutory rape and polygamy. Most of the family tries to downplay the comments by remaining silent or rapidly changing the subject, but the gay or lesbian person at the table cringes in discomfort. Although Uncle Good-But-Homophobic has offended the very essence of the gay family member, the rest of the table demands silence for the "greater good."

Warren's defenders are playing the role of the straight family members who enable the homophobic (or racist or sexist) uncle. They are asking GLBT people to look at the bigger picture and to accept a good guy with troubling politics because there is room at the table for everyone. Perhaps this is the best course of action. But these types of deals ultimately require that some groups make sacrifices not shared by the whole. The stakes become even greater and more volatile when the situation involves concrete policy and not mere symbolism. I cannot stop wondering whether Warren's defenders would demand the same type of sacrifices by other groups -- or whether they would make the same sacrifices themselves.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

I started a link list in my post on the Reverend Rick Warren controversy, but some of the arguments are so passionate and precise that they warrant special attention. For example, check out my "pal" Professor Nan Hunter's response on her blog Hunter of Justice:

Your election is over, pal. You won't lose any votes next time over this, but do you really believe you're going to gain any?

[]I know what you're banking on - the appeal to Americans of the anti-ideologue, the leader who solves problems, who "reaches across the aisle." But when principles are important, the public also wants a leader who has a few, who stands for something, who isn't constantly trying to please and accommodate.

I am reminded of one of Barney Frank's quips from a speech I heard him give a couple of weeks ago: "Every time Obama talks about post-partisan politics, I get post-partisan depression."

[]Historians may . . . compare your moves on this issue to how FDR mollified white racists in order to get his New Deal legislation through Congress. . . but . . . at least we got the New Deal.

What will we get from you?

[Editor's note: Strong words, Professor Hunter!]

And stop by new blog buddy Christal Phillips at the blog that shares her name. Phillips, who has a highly impressive resume (B.A. from Michigan in 2005, J.D. from Michigan in 2008, currently enrolled in Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism!), does not waste any time before dissecting this issue:

This election year has proven that it is easier for Obama to stand for nothing or remain silent on controversial issues such as gay marriage and affirmative action (because the majority of gays, women, and minorities will support him anyway) while he garners support from right-wing moderates and Libertarians.

Remaining silent is bad enough. But to invite someone like Warren to this historic inauguration speaks volumes about Obama’s commitment to GLBT rights. To allow someone like Jon Favreau to keep his job speaks volumes about Obama’s commitment to women’s rights. Until Democrats hold our leaders accountable things like this will continue because they know they can get away with it and still win.

[Editors note: I disagree with calls for Favreau to resign or for Obama to fire him, because I take my cues from Clinton on this one. I agree with everything else Phillips argues.]

And Heidi Li (both Li and Hunter teach at Georgetown Law Center) of Heidi Li's Potpourri offers a response right here on Dissenting Justice:

By choosing a clergymember whose views are homophobic Mr. Obama is affiliating himself with those views. I know Mr. Obama claims that having other clergy who are not homophobic sort of cancels out the affiliation, but that isn't how it works when it comes to affiliating oneself with haters. . . . Suppose we grant that not everything Strom Thurmond ever did was bad; he was still, in my view, irredeemable, because of the virulence of his racism against blacks. In general Mr. Obama shows an alarming tendency to think that everything is ethically equal - so one can balance keeping Bob Gates in office by making some other appointments of people who opposed the war in Iraq. But that is not how good ethical judgment works.

[Editor's note: See my response to Li in the comments section.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

During the brief post-election season, critics have had many opportunities to problematize Obama's leftist credentials. Progressives, seemingly awakening from an Obama-Vegetative State, have complained about his Cabinet choices, his shifting position on war, and his decision to delay raising taxes on the wealthy and upon oil companies. In the latest progressive flap, GLBT rights groups are upset with Obama's decision to have Reverend Rick Warren perform the invocation at his inauguration ceremony.

Warren's conservative views on gay rights (and other issues) should alarm progressives. For example, he is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, and he campaigned in favor of California Proposition 8 (a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage in heterosexual terms). When asked to explain his objection to same-sex marriage during an interview, Warren responded that he also opposes incestuous marriage, marriage between adults and children, and polygamy. He later said that he views all of these "relationships," including same-sex marriage, as moral equivalents.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest advocate for gay and lesbian rights, has sent an "open letter" to Obama, complaining about Warren speaking at the inauguration. Ironically, in 2006, many members of Warren's conservative congregation criticized his decision to invite Obama to speak at the church where he serves as a minister. Specifically, congregants disagreed with Obama's pro-choice voting record.

My Analysis

There are a few points I want to make about this issue. First, although I have condemned the unseemly desire of the public to project itself into the private religious lives of political candidates, this case is distinguishable. This situation does not represent a moment where the public has unnecessarily scrutinized Obama's private religious beliefs. Instead, Obama himself has made his religious practice public (to the extent that selecting a minister to participate in the inauguration constitutes "religious practice") and therefore subject to public scrutiny.

If you think I am "waffling," then so be it. Besides, I am analyzing the issue primarily from a political perspective. At the end of the day, I am far more interested in how Obama views GLBT rights issues, not in whom he chooses to speak at the inauguration. Unfortunately, I am already skeptical about his support for gay rights.

Second (here is the political analysis), I am not sure why Obama believes this is a good move politically. Although it is certainly consistent with his "reaching across the aisle" philosophy, many GLBT people are already suspicious of his support. The doubting started during the Democratic primaries, when he campaigned with "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. Also, it has become increasingly clear that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will not become a priority until late in his presidency, if at all (see my analysis here, here, and here). Furthermore, because Warren played such a visible role in the defeat of same-sex marriage in California, his inclusion in the inauguration ceremony will only exacerbate the perceived vulnerability of GLBT people.

Finally, I hate to say it (not really), but "I told you so." GLBT activists remained silent while all of the leading Democratic candidates, including Obama, took moderate-to-conservative positions on sexual orientation issues, especially same-sex marriage. Obama and Warren have both stated that they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. It seems more than a little inconsistent for HRC to condemn Warren's presence at the inauguration when his views on the morality of same-sex marriage are materially indistinct from Obama's. In fact, Obama's opposition should bother HRC even more than Warren's because Obama occupies the highest position of political power in the country, while Warren is simply a minister who lacks the power to promulgate public policy. If the Left wanted to engage in critical inquiry concerning Obama and sexuality, it should have done so at a much earlier point. Instead, a lot of them simply gave him a pass.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?