Sad news on the GLBT front: write to the Obama transition team

[netmouse]

Reported this week: Obama is planning to include an invocation by Rick Warren in the inauguration process in January. Warren is someone who has used the pulpit to compare the loving relationships between GLBT couples to degrading activities such as incest and pedophilia.

It is becoming clear to me that decent treatment of gay families in this country is not just a civil rights issue. It's not just a separation of church and state issue, either. What we must as a society recognize is that churches who teach hatred of the gay minority, who teach that their love is an abomination, are fundamentally wrong to do so.

As Len pointed out to me last night, it was not so long ago that preachers across the country used the pulpit to speak out against mixed race couples, and mixed race marriage, using the bible to defend their bigotry and their prejudices. The same people who argued that people should not lay down with people of a different color, and who still preach that they should not lay down with someone of the same sex even if they are themselves homosexual in nature are, similarly, completely wrong.

You can find an argument against nearly everything in the bible. But as society has progressed, our interpretations and the translation of meaning according to an enlightened morality has thankfully moved forward. So we no longer stone our neighbors, and we no longer hang black men for sleeping with white women, and we need to stop punishing and demonizing gay people as well, recognizing that they are currently an oppressed minority, and our democracy is supposed to be better than that.

Let's make it so.

I encourage you to contact the transition team and let them know how you feel about Rick Warren's inclusion in the inauguration ceremony.

Comments

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

What we must as a society recognize is that churches who teach hatred of the gay minority, who teach that their love is an abomination, are fundamentally wrong to do so.

I'm going to partially disagree here. While I agree that teaching hate is never desirable, these churches are entitled to their beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality. Arguing with them that such beliefs are "fundamentally wrong" is likely to lead to a lot of shouting, and no useful outcome. The real problem, in my view, is that such religious views are given government sanction under the pretense that procreation is a compelling state interest. That prevents the stakeholders in this debate from being able to agree to disagree and go their separate ways.

Rick Warren has a record that suggests that he could work with Obama on issues like poverty relief and environmental stewardship, and I think that it speaks well for Obama that he's trying to show some inclusiveness, even to those with whom he disagrees. If he can work with Warren where they agree, and disagree civilly on the rest, I think they're setting a good example. Also, a lot of Obama's constituents (meaning U.S. citizens) agree with Warren's views, and showing them an olive branch reduces the odds of them becoming angry and obstructionist. It's only an invocation; it's not like Warren is going to be setting Obama's social policy. It's also worth noting that Joseph Lowery, a pastor with a solid pro-gay record, is going to be giving the Benediction.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

All good points. Thanks for expanding on the topic.

But I still feel that the anti-gay argument, like the anti-miscegenation argument, is one that needs to be directly challenged. It's not out of character for Obama to be inclusive in this way, but I'm still saddened by it.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

I suspect that directly challenging it might be the only way to lose, in the long run. All of the demographics point to a significant progressive shift on gender issues over the next couple of decades, and the only way I can see it not happening is if it's pushed too quickly, thereby handing conservatives a banner to rally around.

[madkingludwig.livejournal.com]

I am with nicegeek on this one. I thought it a stroke of true inclusion and a master-stroke politically.
Inclusion is not inclusive if you only bring in the people you agree with. The Democrats lost by preaching to the choir; the Republican speaking style is more of a ranting/foaming-at-the-mouth kind of cadence, but they fell victim to the same problem.
We want and need Rick Warren's constituency to hear our ideas. Just to tap into that crowd and get them to read more than the two or three passages of the Bible that make possible, tenuous allusions to homosexuality and to look at the main themes of the Good Book, which abound with compassion for all, care for the poor, endless resistance to cruelty, malice and hypocrisy is without limit as to its value.
I think it's a great idea.
And they are having a pro-gay preacher as well.
As to the miscegenation/homosexuality argument:
1) That is the slippery slope of morality that the right is whining about.
2) It was accepted, at least in law if not universally in fact, when African-Americans were finally considered people. America is not even that far with gays, though that day is drawing closer. Let's make them people first and get them basic rights through anti-discrimination legislation first.
Frankly, I think in 10 years this debate will be long gone. It's becoming increasingly LESS of a big deal and we are seeing the death throes of the bigots on this one.