A full month before Inauguration Day, no-Drama Obama finally made his own first public blunder, selecting Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his swearing-in ceremony on January 20.
Yes, that’s right, Rick Warren. Public Proposition 8 supporter, and pastor of Saddleback Church, an Orange County Evangelical megachurch, who humbly stated that same-sex marriage is comparable to incest or pedophilia and could lead to hate speech prosecutions of Christians.
Who knew that the first controversy President-Elect Obama would be responsible for would bypass the fringe right-wing mobs that called him a Muslim or a socialist. Instead the outrage comes from the left, people in the heart of the pro-diversity coalition that Obama inexorably represents, rightly offended by Warren’s views.
It’s not hard to imagine what the transition team’s reasoning was, as the decision was likely made without much thought. Warren is a staunch social conservative whose following voted for John McCain, but agrees with Obama on climate change, AIDS, energy and concern for the downtrodden, where Obama’s most ambitious agenda lies. The Obama team hoped to reach out to “both sides” to make the inauguration into an all-American event rather than a partisan one.
But the team failed to consider Warren’s most recent offensive comments about same-sex marriage (which did not come out until the same day as the inauguration announcement), Warren’s past positions, or raw nerves from Proposition 8. They failed to predict the depth of LGBT outrage in what turned out to be a glaring oversight in judgment. No doubt the president-elect now regrets his choice. The small token of unity and symbolism that Warren’s participation might have offered him — and perhaps the whole inauguration itself — is now overshadowed by controversy.
It’s actually brilliance in deep disguise. See here: (link)
DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and don’t forget among other things: UAFA – United American Families Act – a bill that grants equal immigration rights to Americans in same-sex binational relationships. An article on UAFA would be informative.
Another great article, Matt. On paper this probably did seem like a great attempt at bringing the different ideological bases together at one event; however, they just didn’t do enough research. And now Obama is in a no win situation, though unfortunately for gay people it is less risky to just stick with Warren than take back the invitation.
You’re right, Obama is still a strong supporter of gay people, and everyone is allowed to make a mistake; and I’ll just change the channel if he is going to repeal DADT and DOMA. Which all indicators seems to suggest he will in his first term.
Guess the honeymoon’s over…
I read your editorial on the Obama selection of Rick Warren to provide the invocation at the inauguration with a great deal of hope, and not a little cynicism.
I hope that your analysis of Obama’s move is correct; that he will indeed turn out to be a champion of LGBT rights, and a progressive voice and leader for the United States.
I am chinical, however, because of my familiarity with the political situation, and what has occurred over the past 20 years or so. Democrats, who have done their best to bury their heads in the sand, are said to have capitulated to the administration and to the right in an attempt to encourage bipartisanship and cooperation between parties. This is, to me, so much bull* that I shudder. And I’m concerned that Obama will just turn out to be another in the long line of our representatives who have fallen to their knees in front of their Republican colleagues.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful essay. I should hae known that I could find such material on Nightcharm.
I read your editorial on the Obama selection of Rick Warren to provide the invocation at the inauguration with a great deal of hope, and not a little cynicism.
I hope that your analysis of Obama’s move is correct; that he will indeed turn out to be a champion of LGBT rights, and a progressive voice and leader for the United States.
I am cynical, however, because of my familiarity with the political situation, and what has occurred over the past 20 years or so. Democrats, who have done their best to bury their heads in the sand, are said to have capitulated to the administration and to the right in an attempt to encourage bipartisanship and cooperation between parties. This is, to me, so much bull* that I shudder. And I’m concerned that Obama will just turn out to be another in the long line of our representatives who have fallen to their knees in front of their Republican colleagues.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful essay. I should hae known that I could find such material on Nightcharm.
Sometimes you have to slide to the side to position yourself for a checkmate, and I’m confident in Obama’s chess skills. We’ve grown so accustomed to an “attack from the front”, predictable administration that we’ve forgotten the concept of strategy.
The Warren choice is nutty, but two things to remember: 1) the folk who love Warren are pissy because Obama is for choice, and 2) guess who is giving the benediction? The Rev. Joseph Lowery, the dean of the Civil Rights movement and the guy who got in trouble for dogging Bush out at Coretta Scott’s funeral
Nightcharm loves Rachel Maddow, the only out gay woman doing news commentary on TV. Here she takes apart Rick Warren without ever raising her voice.
MUST-SEE TV!
What I’d like to see for those who will be present at the invocation, is that the ones who disagree with Warren, turn their backs toward him. That would send a message. Perhaps a movement should be started.
Protesters at the inauguration could hold up a gigantic sign: Might I suggest:
THE HOMOPHOBIA-DRIVEN LIFE
In the spirit of M.Ghandi and M.L.King the suggestion above by Anton Willims is an excellent one.
Maybe we can get the shoe-thrower to pay a special visit to Mr. Warren during his speech?
Frank Rich in today’s New York Times (12/28/08):