Let Rick Warren Speak.

This will offend a lot of people’s sentiments, and I don’t care, I’m saying it anyhow.
I am absolutely pro-gay rights. I am completely for gay marriage and gay adoption rights. I loathe violence against gays, and think “hate crimes” prosecutions should be used not only more frequently, but more vehemently.
That said, it’s times like these when the gay rights movement really pisses me off. The childlike in-the-streets revolutions after the Prop 8 scandal were infuriating, but this outcry against Rick Warren being selected to speak at Obama’s inauguration just smacks of utter hypocrisy, and someone has to say it.
In a nutshell, gays want respect to live their lives as they see fit. They want to be respected for their differing viewpoints and lifestyle choices. They want inclusion. They want equality.
Yet they want to un-include a man who commands respect as one of America’s religious leaders who happens to oppose their viewpoint. They want him kicked out of the big flashy party, unable to speak, and they want him to lose validation in the eyes of the country’s leaders. Am I really the only one who doesn’t get it?
Look. Warren believes what he believes, but he is a good man. I disagree passionately with him on gay rights, but as Christians go, he’s a great one… until you get to the gay-rights thing.
But you don’t win people over by isolating them or judging or excluding him, or any of the right-wing religious types, like many gay activists want to do here. No, you bring both sides together and you remember what things you hold in common, and you say, “Well, we DO have common ground, let’s start there” and you proceed with eyes open, not hearts or minds closed.
This butting of heads — “I’m right, you’re wrong” — done by both sides of this issue in the last decade has gotten us nowhere. Am I really the only person sick of the redundancy of the arguments, tired of the repetitive motions of all of it?
Obama proclaims he can put “community” and “unity” back into the country. He was elected primarily because he was to bring an END to this partisan you’re-with-us-or-against-us mentality that has taken America by storm. Now he’s putting his money where his mouth is and inviting BOTH sides to be a part of what is billed as the most inclusive inauguration in American history, and people want to call him a hypocrite?
Wake the fuck up. This is a new way of tackling a problem that wasn’t getting solved the old way. People on the left and the right have common grounds. Let’s find them, start there, and see where a new direction takes us. This isn’t the end of the fight. It’s just a smarter fight.
It’s time to open minds to possibility, rather than hemmed in with judgment and fear. Like that’s been working for us?

11 thoughts on “Let Rick Warren Speak.

  1. DP

    Perhaps, though, a fair amount of the backlash against Warren is simply that he is an uninformed asshat. Note how King, at the end of the snippet below, manages to take Warren’s own argument against homosexuality and turn it around as an argument for homosexuality–using Warren’s line of reasoning.
    I guess I’m just opposed to stupid people speaking at a presidential swearing in. Let them speak, by all means, anywhere else–that’s a right. But why choose them to speak at such an important event?
    And: “The childlike in-the-streets revolutions after the Prop 8 scandal were infuriating…”
    Ouch. Those darn protests and riots for black civil rights were infuriating too, I guess, huh? At least explain your reasoning when you say something like that.
    “Warren believes what he believes, but he is a fine, fine man.”–Seriously?
    He’s a fearmonger and a bigot. And he’s really successful at selling that attitude, selling that “us versus them” mentality that doesn’t allow the kind of conversation Obama wants to initiate. I think that is the biggest reason to oppose Warren’s inclusion in all of this.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not offended, at all, by what you wrote. I’m just confused–it seems to run so counter to most of what you write here.
    To wit, on Warren’s asshattery:
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/02/lkl.01.html
    [Warren]…
    Now people ask me all the time what do you think about homosexuality, OK? Well, I don’t approach it — I approach it like this. When you look at a female body and you look at a male body it seems that naturally certain parts go together.
    KING: It seems that way, therefore how do you explain why someone is homosexual?
    WARREN: I don’t explain it. I don’t explain it.
    KING: Well, then that doesn’t suffice.
    WARREN: Well, and…
    KING: Do you know why women, why you like women, just because the body is shaped differently?
    WARREN: Oh, no, I’m sure I know why I like women.
    KING: You do?
    WARREN: I think — I think I was wired by God to like women. I think they…
    KING: So, what did he do to the gay person, God?
    WARREN: I don’t know that God did that. I really don’t.
    KING: You mean he did it to you but he didn’t do it to them?
    WARREN: You know, Larry, we all have instincts and we all have urges and we all have desires. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I fulfill all of them. In other words, as a heterosexual man I might desire to have sex with 100 women. That doesn’t mean I do it because that wouldn’t be the right thing.
    KING: All right, but if you desire another man and you’re a man and you’re an adult, who are you harming if the two of you agree and it’s your life?
    WARREN: Yes.
    KING: It’s not Rick Warren’s life or Larry King’s life. It’s their life.
    WARREN: Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is it natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here’s an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time? Now think about this.
    If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.
    KING: So, we take the reverse. The creator then approves of it.
    WARREN: Well, I believe…
    KING: Darwin’s wrong. The creator is right. Gays are right.
    WARREN: Yes well, of course, I believe that God created one man for one woman for life. A lot of the problems — as a pastor I’ve notice that when God gives certain rules they’re really for our benefit. They’re not because God’s capricious or just “I think that I’m going to make your life miserable.”

  2. A Scribe Called Steff

    DP, I can respect the guy and absolutely HATE his beliefs, you know. He’s a decent person who believes really stupid shit on some counts.
    I’m just saying, the Inauguration is not going to be a pulpit, he’s not going to get to spout about gays and shit like that. He’s going to probably stick to nice, clean, homogenized talking points.
    It’s not even really ABOUT his speech, though. It’s about the principle of the thing. Let’s exclude those who don’t believe what we do, but then make them validate us for being what they don’t believe? It doesn’t compute.
    Gays not being equal IS NOT RIGHT. I believe this, people. With all my heart.
    But I also believe that, had someone in the middle of the deep American south been able to convince whites that blacks really did live life the same as whites, weren’t evil people, kissed their kids goodnight, loved a good roasted turkey like they do, said their prayers, dreamed of a better day, and treated others as they wanted to be treated… well, maybe a little common ground might have stopped a few lynchings or shaved a few years off their struggle.
    As for the “childlike revolutions” in the streets, what, you think breaking windows and some of the stupid shit that happened was FURTHERING the cause?
    I’m all for marches. I’m NOT a supporter of destruction of private properties and some of the other shit that went down in those “marches”. Showing the angst and near-violent tendencies of some of those marchers did NOT make gays look like Ideal Adoptive Parents, you know what I’m saying?
    This isn’t just a social struggle, it’s a poltiical struggle. Images matter. And images of rageful, plate-glass-shattering gays didn’t do a lot to help this struggle.
    Imagine if blacks had been shattering windows and destroying property back in the bad old days. Would that have set their struggle back, you think? Oh, yeah.
    What I thought was a BRILLIANT strategy against the Prop 8 was when some of the sex bloggers ran the “8 against 8” campaign, with all the beautiful images of not-so-ordinary-but-clearly-full-of-love gay family portraits.
    ANYHOW.
    I’m saying: LET Rick Warren speak at the inauguration. Let him do his own brand of religious blessing on Obama’s term. Let the Christian Right think that Obama likes them, too, and that he RESPECTS their beliefs — which Obama actually does, but at least he understands that HIS beliefs have no place on the lawbooks, that none of our religious beliefs do.
    Let us all realize that we share the same Golden Rule and general etiquette and mores, and then let’s say, “Let’s solve this.”
    Sooner or later, it’s going to come down to religious types HAVING TO REALIZE that religion has no fucking place in law. Sooner or later, things need to go entirely the way of the Gay Rights Movement. I don’t think THAT is arguable.
    And I hope to god it’s sooner. It would do gays some good to remember the black struggle took 230 years. The gay struggle’s really only been raging the last 15 or so years, since it was “closeted” before that, really. The advancements are fantastic. Yet they’re not enough. But we need to be realistic.
    Don’t we want to get there with less hate, with less residual discrimination and resentment leftover than there was in the ’60s? Don’t we want to get there with some kind of community, having the religious right realize that a gay nuclear family is NOT the end of civilization, just like mixed marriages weren’t?
    Don’t we want a little healing on the way to change?
    I’m just really fucking tired of the fights. I’m spent, I’m done, I want everyone to love one another and just get it all over with. I want this resolved BETTER. I don’t want the ideological clashes to continue.
    I’m not naive, I know it’s going to be hard, but you know what? It was hard anyhow.
    Rick Warren has moronic beliefs. I’d say that about any evangelical or born-again Christian. I just think our side needs to be better than their side, and fight our fight from the example the Right claims to live by — loving their fellow man, not judging them, living under and by God, extending the olive branch, et al.
    We need to be what they CLAIM they are. We need to be better. If we can do that, if we can be the change we want to see, then I think the going-forward will be a world different.
    In the end the laws will get passed and people will still be pissed off. I just think it’s possible to mitigate some of that reaction by how the fight for equality is waged.
    Anyhow. I should have coffee before I respond, but I think I’ve said most of my thoughts… Coffee would have helped something fierce tho. 😛

  3. DP

    I’ll hesitantly agree with almost all your thoughts there–hesitantly in the sense that we’re coming at it from different methodologies, which makes neither of us completely off the wall wrong.
    Blacks were shattering windows, among other things–and not just blacks–and I do think that made a difference. There is a sacrifice when you choose image over active civil disobedience (where, for clarity, I consider MLK to be passive civil disobedience, and Malcolm X to be active). Both furthered the cause, in completely different ways, and both were controversial in their methods. But I suspect image did not rank high among their concerns. The social/political revolutions that defined and furthered the U.S. as a nation have been peaceful, bloody and image-conscious. I think that applies to all radical change. And I say that as a hawkish pacifist.
    In the end, I agree with your reasons. They may not convince me, but they’re reasons, which is far more than Warren offers.
    You didn’t need the coffee–it was a very good response.

  4. A Scribe Called Steff

    Well, I agree with a little rough demonstrating, too. I think it has its place. I sort of agreed with the Prop 8 revolts, but a couple got a little over the top for me. I was glad marches occurred, though, and quickly.
    I think I’m just tired of marches and revolts and shit. I think I just want a kinder, gentler way for a bit, and to see how that does us, now that we’re apparently on the verge of a congress and leader who might be more inclined to actually do the RIGHT thing, rather than just the “Right” thing.
    We’ll see.
    I’d be happier if Warren wasn’t speaking, though, to be honest. 🙂

  5. Dave

    I wrote this great comment agreeing with Steff, but it accidentally got zonked from her server. So I will repost – though not exactly in the same words.
    Steff is right. Rick Warren is not my taste, but he’s also an American, and last I checked Obama will the president of the U.S., not the president of just those whom he agrees with. We had a president who was the latter for eight years, and how well did that work? What’s more, Warren is not “speaking” at the inauguration, he’s praying – big difference in my book. And he won’t be the only religious person there – the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a legendary civil rights leader who was against Prop 8, is giving the benediction. (I believe Lowery was at the March on Washington, so whoa.)
    And one thing I didn’t put in my original comment – a few year ago Warren invited Obama to speak at his church at an AIDS awareness event, and he got a lot of shit from his followers and conservatives for that, to the point that he was pushed to disinvite Obama because of his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stances. But Warren didn’t back down. As much as I disagree with him on many social issues, he had the balls not to succumb to pressure to basically stifle an alternate voice. You have to respect that, and respect Obama for being the same kind of man.

  6. 4Nfood

    Most of U.S. don’t know how to read the signs of the times (and between the lines) to know Almighty God’s a concrete, kick-ass reality. I’m proof! GOD BLESSA YOUSE -Fr. Sarducci, SNL — May the Creator of the Cosmos bestow upon you discernment and wisdom this CHRIST-mass season!
    4Nfood’s last blog post..Two, Silly Questions From Hillary Clinton:

  7. kathulhu

    Voltaire said it best when he said, “I may not agree with a word you say, but I shall defend unto my death your right to say it.” I think both sides need to keep that quote in mind.
    kathulhu’s last blog post..My Blog PWNS!

  8. Anon

    So, here`s my question.
    Equal rights and respect toward the gay community means a willingness to respect the opinions and beliefs of others, that don`t necessarily mesh with the beliefs that you hold yourself. I`m ok with that. I`ve hung out (not literally of course) at many a gay bar and find the people I`ve met to be no different then anyone you might bump into on the side walk in your own community.
    So, in similar spirit to your post, is it not also fair that we respect the definition (whether it be social, political, spiritual or otherwise) that has been applied to the institution of `Marriage ` over the past 2000 years?
    Does the fact that some people don`t believe the definition of the word marriage should be extended beyond the union of 2 people of the opposite sex, mean they don`t see a gay couple as equal?
    Is it only the views and beliefs of minority groups that we have to be sensitive to? The fact that applying the definition of Marriage to the civil union of a gay couple offends some so much, just means that it runs counter to their idea of the institution of Marriage.
    10 years from now, do my children have to be taught in their first few years of school that they can marry a boy or a girl?
    If everything else remains equal, is it really anti-gay for the word marriage to retain its historical definition of the civil union of two people of the opposite sex?

  9. Todd Adamson

    I overdosed on election stuff, and have been mostly off the news grid this month. I’m glad I saw this post to get me started thinking about this “issue.” Thanks for the smart conversation, and right now I’m feeling 100% in agreement with the OP.

Comments are closed.