Exporting extreme homophobia

Nigeria's Senate passed a nasty anti-homosexuality bill. It isn't quite as bad as the one in Uganda -- Nigeria limits prison to 5 (or maybe it's 14) years instead of life -- but it comes close. The House already passed a version, so reconciliation should happen quickly and it will soon be on the president's desk.

Eric Ethington, in an article reprinted in The New Civil Rights Movement, notes the anti-gay laws in Nigeria, Uganda, and Russia (and probably a few other places) were highly influenced by a handful of American anti-gay evangelicals. Ethington names three: Scott Lively (charged with crimes against humanity), Rick Warren, and Don Schmierer. We're exporting extreme homophobia. Ethington wonders what we in America can do to make them stop.

That historical inauguration

GeoEye-1 and CNET had released photos of the inauguration from space to show the size of the crowds. The last one shows the Mall from the Washington Monument to the Capitol and can be enlarged.

I wasn't able to watch the whole inaugural parade, so I had to rely on this link to see the Lesbian and Gay Band Association pass in front of the presidential viewing stand.

John Stewart on the Inauguration and with an interview with Gene Robinson. Now that we have a black president, is a gay or lesbian president possible? Yes, says Robinson.

It is good to say and write President Obama. I never wrote it that way for Bush because he was never my president. I didn't want to dignify him with the term. In his first days in office President Obama has shown how different he is from his predecessor, all for the better. These include:

* Pay freeze for White House staff earning more than $100K.
* Ban on executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
* Instructions for his administration to operate under principles of openness, transparency, and engaging citizens in their government.
* Instructions that only a former president (and not anyone else) can assert executive privilege for keeping records private.
* Ordering the Attorney General and White House Legal Council to review all claims of executive privilege.

And all that was on day one.

Day two included:

* Ordering Gitmo to be closed in a year.
* Ordering the CIA to follow the US Army Field Manual on interrogation (no torture).
* Ordering the CIA to close overseas "black site" prisons.

Yeah, some claimed we got great intel out of torture. Others respond saying both are you sure? and great intel probably isn't worth the hit on our national reputation. Yes, it feels good to call him President Obama.


Bishop Gene Robinson gave an invocation before last Sunday's We Are One concert at the Lincoln Memorial. Alas, his prayer was not included in HBO's broadcast of the event with Robinson praying at 2:25 and the cameras rolling at 2:30. There was a lot of finger pointing afterward with the Obama Presidential Inauguration Committee finally accepting the blame. Of course, that made gays less pleased with the new president.

I think the prayer itself is quite good. It takes deep understanding to include such phrases as:

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

I also pray the last paragraph: Please, God, keep the new president safe.
The full text is on the New Hampshire Episcopal Church website.


In contrast, Warren's prayer got cool reviews.


I wanted to view the inauguration at the Affirmations Gay and Lesbian Center in Ferndale. It didn't quite work out that way. One reason was mine. Though various news sources said the ceremony is at noon they didn't clarify that the actual oath is supposed to be administered by then (it was a few minutes late) and quite a bit happens before then. Affirmations said their festivities started at 11:00 but I figured I could be there about 11:30 with no problem. The other reason was traffic. I encountered a backup at the I-96 to Southfield Fwy interchange and it took me a nearly 20 minutes to get through it. By then I decided to just go home (much closer than the center) and watch by myself. I had NPR on while sitting on the freeway, so heard the procession of dignitaries. I got my TV on just before the actual ceremony started at about 11:45.

No, you can't take it with you

St. James Episcopal Church recently lost a ruling in the Calif. Supreme Court. The rules for becoming a congregation of the Episcopal Church (or any denomination) mean that though an individual congregation paid the construction costs and mortgage for a church building it is held in trust for the denomination, who are the actual owners. St. James is in a snit over Bishop Gene Robinson and wants out of the denomination. The Supremes said, fine, you as a congregation can leave. The building cannot.

Rick Warren has stuck his nose into this situation and said you stood up to the forces of evil and lost your building? Come use ours. Which gives the impression Warren is aiding the schism of a denomination of which he is not a member. Is this good? Will United Methodists and Presbyterians be his next targets? We have enough trouble with such groups as the Institute of Religion and Democracy. But, as I've concluded before, perhaps a schism is a good thing. Why should a congregation be forced to compromise on its bigotry?l

Persistent differences

Frank Rich, in an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times did a great job wading through the Rick Warren mess. It is worth a read. The part that stuck with me was this:

Obama may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are.

The only (and tiny) blunder was that Rich repeated the disproved notion that 70% of blacks voted for the Calif. marriage ban.

Admitting God is wrong

I wasn't going to bother with Rick Warren anymore, but a couple sentences caught my eye. In a posting describing how Warren is trying to repackage himself (and failing because he is blaming others for the mess), a commentator notes:

But Warren is like many preachers I have known. He is convinced that God has called him and that this entitles him to stand above criticism. He’s become accustomed to being a leader of his flock (at 22,000 an awfully large flock) and having his word equated with Gospel.

To Rick Warren, admitting that he has done others wrong is akin to admitting that God is wrong. And why should he back down? God is on his side.

A reply then muses if Warren is acting more like a politician -- a "moderate" Evangelical -- than a pastor.

What we hold in common

Sigh. The Rich Warren issue still simmers and the man himself (Rick, not Barack) isn't helping matters. Richard Cohen in an editorial in the Washington Post wrote:

"[Obama said,]'We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.' Sounds nice. But what we do not 'hold in common' is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence. Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate. The party's off."

Alas, Warren said that gays are afraid of Christians and have Christ-o-phobia. Gee, Rick, I wonder why that is? Could it be that you discredit our faith every chance you get?

Then Warren showed up for a photo-op at a West Hollywood gay thrift shop. Convincing no one. A commenter notes that it is Warren and not Obama who is trying to appear presentable.

Gay marriage is a religious issue

Two gay writers debate the Rick Warren issue. One is Chris Crain who used to publish the Washington Blade (a gay newspaper). The other is Leah McElrath Renna, a psychotherapist who also write for the Huffington Post. Each gets to comment on the other's ideas:

Crain: Obama is looking for unity in areas where we agree, not areas of conflict. Besides, it is brilliant for the most pro-gay president to get the support of an anti-gay pastor.

Renna: The inauguration is a symbolic event, not a policy discussion. The invocation is supposed to represent all Americans. Obama wouldn't consider a pastor who was anti-Muslim. This choice is an act of spiritual violence that could have been avoided.

Crain: Calling it spiritual violence is overkill. Warren was asked to say a prayer, nothing more. No matter who Obama picks someone could view it as spiritual violence. And be careful how you describe Warren because he does leave the door open for legal recognition of gay couples.

Renna: Sorry, Warren's prayer does carry symbolic weight and he becomes a spiritual representative. The issue isn't whether he might allow civil unions (a far cry from supporting them), but that he denies our sexual orientation is god-given. In Warren's defense, the only area of fundamentalism he follows is in the treatment of gays.

Crain: Skip the bickering about Warren's actual views. Our rights won't advance unless we reach out to those who disagree with us.

Renna: This isn't about rights. Warren doesn't believe gays exist and it is his religion that backs up that belief. We'll never win our rights if we say it is a social issue and not a religious one. And because Warren is there because of his religion we find his invitation offensive.

This is an example of civility?

The Rick Warren story is still boiling, and he isn't helping his cause. I said yesterday that Warren said some nasty things about gays. Here's a few details: He thinks gay relationships are morally equivalent to child rape, incest, and polygamy. He lied as part of his efforts to get the Calif. gay marriage ban passed. He insists that all gays are promiscuous and therefore should be celibate (the part he added most recently). And then adds insult to injury by wondering why we aren't as civil as he is.

Rachel Maddow, a lesbian commentator on MSNBC, spent a good chunk of Thursday's show describing why Warren isn't worthy of the invitation. I haven't watched it, though it is good to know it is there.

Though Warren will remain a stain on the inauguration we need to take a look at the guy who will give the benediction. He is Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery who helped Martin Luther King found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. Though officially retired, he is still quite active. Here is a posting of Lowery giving the eulogy at Coretta Scott King's funeral along with a comparison of the stature of Lowery to the pettiness of Warren. The comment section of this post wonders if Obama's vision is much more long term than the average person's and that he knows exactly how it will all play out. An example of this is the way he treated Palin. Obama's supporters wanted him to give a knock-out punch. Instead he pretty much ignored her and let her destroy her approval rating on her own. Nice thought, but there are skeptics.

Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, was invited to attend the Inauguration. But with Warren on the program, he has decided he won't attend. He isn't the only one in the boycott, though perhaps one with the highest position in the gay community.

NOT a good way to start a presidency

Gays, in particular, are feeling punched in the gut with the announcement that Obama has chosen Evangelical pastor Rock Warren for the invocation at his Inauguration. News has since come out that the pick was made by Obama himself and among the "talking points" from Obama are these (some of which are truncated):

* In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

* Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

* The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community.

* As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground

* The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues.

* And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

The last point is that a gay marching band, members of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association, has made it into the parade. They get a homophobic pastor and we get a band? Shouldn't we at least supply Michelle's hairdresser too?

The core of the complaint is that while Warren works for the end of AIDS, he also campaigned for the Calif. gay marriage ban (saying some nasty and dismissive things about gays along the way) and, like most Evangelicals, is against abortion.

Obama says he wants to keep the discussion going. Fine. But the inauguration isn't a discussion. And campaigning for women's rights and gay rights and then selecting a pastor that is very much against both makes a lot of people feel sold out. This isn't a case of finding a centrist palatable to everyone. Warren and his Fundie colleagues have said there is no way they can compromise on gay issues (as the marriage ban showed). There isn't a lot of "discussion" that can happen between these people and gays (where the discussion will happen is with the common people -- religious or not -- who simply don't yet know what being gay is all about. So why does "come together" mean the Fundies set the baseline and we have to come to them?

An example of the reaction: Inviting Warren is (to gays) like inviting a white supremacist. Alas, Warren himself claims not to be a homophobe. Riiiight.

This issue has created a lot of noise in the gay blogsphere (and a lot of feedback). See postings here, here (nice graphic), here (includes to statements from gay organizations), here, and here. It is also generating a lot of "too bad, sucker" gloating in the Fundie blogsphere. Not a good way to start off a presidency.

There shall be no religious test

While many Christian conservatives are rejoicing that the first presidential discussion of both Obama and McCain was held at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, a lot of others aren't. One gay blogger describes it this way:

* The event essentially applied a religious test to gaining the office of president, something the Constitution explicitly forbids. Both candidates were explicitly asked about their faith in Jesus, a question that a Unitarian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist would find impossible to answer appropriately.

* Obama, though he rejected a marriage protection amendment, reinforced the ideas that marriage is sacred and therefore out of bounds for gays, government should have a hand in sacred institutions, and public policy is better when attached to a statement of faith.

Submitting to this line of interrogation is a bad idea on Obama's part (perhaps even McCain's) because of the large block of voters for which their leader's faith is irrelevant. One estimate is this block of "unchurched" is now 75 million and elections have been lost on much less. Perhaps Obama is aware they find religion irrelevant and most are not antagonistic to it.

But the event even has conservatives squirming, at least the ones who can recognize the danger: What if Obama gave the "wrong" answer? What if it had been too liberal? Even among Christians how do we judge what is a proper relationship to Jesus? Shouldn't the next questioner be a rabbi or an imam? What does it prove about their ability to fulfill the duties of president? Wouldn't have time be better spent discussing health care? In short, the question should not have been asked.

The winner in this circus was not Obama or McCain. It was Warren. He was able to reinforce the idea that to get elected in America one must toe the fundamentalist line -- that there is a religious test for the office of president.