• commentary
  • TUESDAY DECEMBER 23 2008 6:00 AM

Digging A Deep Warren Hole

For those of you who haven’t been following, Obama chose shocking asshole and homophobe Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Many have explained to those who are offended that they have no right to be upset because this is a move of inclusion. They say Obama is reaching across the aisle. It’s about bipartisanship. It’s about him being a president to everybody. Uh, yeah. If you believe that you are one stupid motherfucker.

Obama, of course, gave his usual response. We’ve really all got to work together and come to an understanding and agree to disagree. Yes. Also, bigots are fine. The one problem with Obama’s comments Ñ aside from the shocking hypocrisy Ñ is that they can’t stand up to one simple argument: Would he invite a racist to give the invocation? No? Why not? They’re many racists in this country who deserve to be included in this administration. They are, after all, Americans. We really should reach out to the racists. How will we come together as a country if we don’t?

But he would do no such thing, because racists are bad, while gay haters are okey-dokey. That’s the message Obama has sent with this decision. And they just won’t shut the fuck up about it. Biden opened his clam hole yesterday.

Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.



Anyone think he meant homophobes? Really? Did you think he meant racists? No, of course not. Just homophones. Got it.

We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.



And he divided us further. It only serves to remind one group of people Ñ the ones who were left out of the victory on November 4th, the ones who were told they were less than by more than one state, the ones who are simmering with anger that they really don’t matter, that they are not part of the equation. Obama doesn’t have to reach over to that side of the aisle because he’s sitting there.

And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to Ñ to Mr. Warren.



Let’s not pretend like Barack Obama supports gay marriage. He does not. That’s why proponents of Prop 8 were able to use his words in ads supporting the ban. Many seem to think Obama is for gay marriage but can’t say so because of the political climate. Bullshit. He has said he is not and that is where the truth lies.

And I get the inclusion thing. Look, Barack wants to work with all people. He wants to bring us together. Why, just take a look at these inclusive words.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.



Oops, my bad. He was talking about Reverend Wright. Sorry, I get confused when figuring out which religious guy is bad and which is good. Comparing gays to pedophiles is not using “words that degrade individuals” and obviously has a “place in our public dialogue.”

He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.



Obviously, he is a horrible man. Rick Warren, on the other hand, is fine. All he does is stuff like urge the assassination of foreign leaders and compare gay marriage to incest. No wait, this speech was given during the election, so it doesn't count, right? That was only for political reasons, but now he's being himself. Is that it?

Obama has picked someone George W. Bush would have picked. This is no different; this is not change in any way shape or form. There are a shitload of pastors who make respectful, civil arguments against gay marriage and abortion and a litany of other fucked up views. I disagree with them, but at least their opinions are not disgusting. Obama didn’t go that way. He went with a guy who couldn’t be more of a hateful fuck when it comes to gays. He picked a guy, who up until yesterday had a web page up that said gays were not welcome at his church. That’s how we disagree without being disagreeable Ñ by finding the guy who uses the most disagreeable language possible. A guy whose views are simply heinous.

But, yeah, America needs this kind of asshole to feel like he is a part of things because guys like him have been feeling so powerless for so long. Oh, woes the mega church pastor. Gay people, on the other hand, have been experiencing WAY too much inclusion and power for too long. Oh, wait; Obama let them have a marching band at the inauguration. Guys like Warren used the exact same type of language when they made arguments against interracial marriage and they didn’t stop because they were included. They stopped because they were shamed, as God intended.

Obama’s “inclusiveness” is no different than the Congressional Democrats “compromises.” It is never to the left, only to the right. I had a very tiny bit of hope that Obama would be a better president than Clinton, but that hope is dying as I watch his administration take shape and the choices he makes. I'm not surprised, given Obama's FISA vote, which was an ugly indicator of things to come. Clinton courted the right on matters of business and America paid the price with deregulation and cuts to social services. Now Obama looks to pick up the torch, but with one difference, he’s going to court the right on social issues.

And that is where the danger lies. Because by including these bigots from the right in this government, you are leaving out a large group of people. The religious fanatics do not do inclusion. They do exclusion.

Four years ago, Rick Warren wrote an inflammatory letter about the presidential contest to thousands of evangelical pastors. This letter revealed him to be a fierce partisan, who epitomized the worst aspects of the Religious Right. He declared five issues to be "non-negotiable" and those they "are not even debatable because God's word is clear on these issues.'" These included abortion, same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia.



Obama is courting “Non-negotiable” Warren. There are those you work with to get things done and those you don’t. These are the people you don’t, unless of course, you have an entirely different agenda. Maybe you just want to stay in power, so giving in to the evangelicals makes sense. Maybe next time around Obama can have Pat Robertson give the invocation.

And make no mistake about it; this is a very important honor. This ups Warren’s profile and nudges him towards becoming America’s new spiritual leader. Many have made an argument that some evangelicals do not like Warren because he invited Obama into his church. No, shit, dumbfuck. Obama’s not trying to peel off the very right evangelicals, he’s going for the young ones who follow Warren. And in doing so, he is tossing gay Americans off the boat. It is a shockingly divisive move.

This is another sign of the end for liberals having any sort of say in this government. This is marginalization. It’s been going on for some time, especially with our current Congress, but now Democrats have an Obama to go along with their Reid and Pelosi party. The religious right took over the Republican Party and now they have their sights on the Democratic Party and Obama is going to open the door wide.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next

Comments
Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

DEC 23, 2008 06:21 AM

Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.

Now, I'm disappointed in Warren's inclusion as well and my foremost reservation about Obama has always been his namby-pamby stance on gay marriage. It's silly and a cop out and he should know better. However, I'm going to wait until I see him fail to live up to those stated policy goals before I say that he is "tossing gay Americans off the boat." Those are the things that are important to me, not some token speaking slot at a party.

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

DEC 23, 2008 06:38 AM

Subrosa said:
Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.

Now, I'm disappointed in Warren's inclusion as well and my foremost reservation about Obama has always been his namby-pamby stance on gay marriage. It's silly and a cop out and he should know better. However, I'm going to wait until I see him fail to live up to those stated policy goals before I say that he is "tossing gay Americans off the boat." Those are the things that are important to me, not some token speaking slot at a party.



And again, you say it better than I ever would.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

DEC 23, 2008 06:44 AM

What Subrosa said.

Oh, and since I'm in a nit-picky mood:

FearTheReaper said:
Anyone think he meant homophobes? Really? Did you think he meant racists? No, of course not. Just homophones. Got it.



"Homophones" are words that sound alike.

"Homophobes" are assholes.

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

DEC 23, 2008 07:50 AM

Subrosa said:
Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.


Wow, that's more ambitious than I thought.

As for Warren, I think it's somewhat unfortunate, but perfectly understandable. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with policy needs their head examined.

RandomNerd

RandomNerd

I'm lost
January 2005

DEC 23, 2008 08:44 AM

silversoul7 said:

Subrosa said:
Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.


Wow, that's more ambitious than I thought.

As for Warren, I think it's somewhat unfortunate, but perfectly understandable. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with policy needs their head examined.



Or, y'know, is a fascist. whatever

So what you're all trying to say is Obama invited Warren so the Religious Right doesn't get suspicious? The Religious Right doesn't trust him at all.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

DEC 23, 2008 08:52 AM

RandomNerd said:
So what you're all trying to say is Obama invited Warren so the Religious Right doesn't get suspicious? The Religious Right doesn't trust him at all.


No. For now I take Obama at his word that he is trying to be "post-partisan" or whatever. I think it's reasonable for us to take him at that word, though I understand the folks who don't.

Whether Obama's gesture here will be effective in "building bridges" is clearly a matter for debate and I am skeptical about that myself, but I don't think we have to look at this through our most cynical lenses. It's an inauguration, not an administration platform. If he's EVER going to be "inclusive" and try to reach out in symbolic ways to the other side, January 20th is absolutely positively the time to do it. Nothing done on that day will have any effect on law or policy whatsoever. If Rick Warren has truck with this Administration on gay rights on January 21st, that's when we should begin sharpening our pitchforks.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

DEC 23, 2008 09:08 AM

Subrosa said:

RandomNerd said:
So what you're all trying to say is Obama invited Warren so the Religious Right doesn't get suspicious? The Religious Right doesn't trust him at all.


No. For now I take Obama at his word that he is trying to be "post-partisan" or whatever. I think it's reasonable for us to take him at that word, though I understand the folks who don't.

Whether Obama's gesture here will be effective in "building bridges" is clearly a matter for debate and I am skeptical about that myself, but I don't think we have to look at this through our most cynical lenses. It's an inauguration, not an administration platform. If he's EVER going to be "inclusive" and try to reach out in symbolic ways to the other side, January 20th is absolutely positively the time to do it. Nothing done on that day will have any effect on law or policy whatsoever. If Rick Warren has truck with this Administration on gay rights on January 21st, that's when we should begin sharpening our pitchforks.



Speaking of inclusive gestures of unity that may mean absolutely nothing when it comes to policy but are sure going to annoy some Obama supporters if not the folks on the religious right, this is the same inauguration that'll feature an openly LGBT marching band in the Inauguration Parade.

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

DEC 23, 2008 09:20 AM

Some interesting commentary from Andrew Sullivan:

John Aravosis has noted that the Saddleback website posting that “someone unwilling to repent for their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted as a member at Saddleback” has been removed. I have to say that this did not strike me as in any way notable, especially since the note also insisted that gays were always welcome to attend services. And one wonders how that makes Warren different from any Catholic bishop let alone the Pope. My own church teaches that I am barred from full communion because of my civil marriage to another man, although it does not bar me from attending mass.

And Benedict has gone out of his way to issue what can only be called calculated affronts to the dignity of homosexual persons. Yesterday's statement that humankind needs "saving" from homosexuality, the way the rainforests need saving from being raped and pillaged is his latest provocation. His first-in-history attempt to ban even celibate gay seminarians is easily the most draconian and hateful anti-gay policy of any church, stigmatizing them even if they agree to obey every stricture the church places on them. His own complicity in covering up the abuse of children and evil protection of Father Maciel make his attacks on the dignity of homosexuals all the more repulsive.

And yet those of us born into this Communion and in love with the Jesus of the Gospels have to find a way to live in this place with our fellow Catholics in charity. At least Warren appears open to dialogue, rather than recoiling in fear and loathing. In that he is somewhat more Christian than this Pope.


Sullivan, for those who don't know, is a gay Catholic.

RandomNerd

RandomNerd

I'm lost
January 2005

DEC 23, 2008 09:29 AM

Uncognitive said:

Subrosa said:

RandomNerd said:
So what you're all trying to say is Obama invited Warren so the Religious Right doesn't get suspicious? The Religious Right doesn't trust him at all.


No. For now I take Obama at his word that he is trying to be "post-partisan" or whatever. I think it's reasonable for us to take him at that word, though I understand the folks who don't.

Whether Obama's gesture here will be effective in "building bridges" is clearly a matter for debate and I am skeptical about that myself, but I don't think we have to look at this through our most cynical lenses. It's an inauguration, not an administration platform. If he's EVER going to be "inclusive" and try to reach out in symbolic ways to the other side, January 20th is absolutely positively the time to do it. Nothing done on that day will have any effect on law or policy whatsoever. If Rick Warren has truck with this Administration on gay rights on January 21st, that's when we should begin sharpening our pitchforks.



Speaking of inclusive gestures of unity that may mean absolutely nothing when it comes to policy but are sure going to annoy some Obama supporters if not the folks on the religious right, this is the same inauguration that'll feature an openly LGBT marching band in the Inauguration Parade.



That's wonderful, to be sure, but I doubt they'll receive much airtime.

I know there's not much you can say about a marching band, besides where they're from, but what I mean is that footage of them might not be included on the live-broadcast, so, effectively, it's like they weren't there at all.

Rick Warren, on the other hand, gets to be in front of all the cameras, which irks me. Of course, I do look forward to the news the next day, when Rick Warren is scolded by the Right-Wing Bloggers and Talking heads for not taking the opportunity to tell the "Demoncrats" they're all going to hell, so there's a silver-lining after all.

Anyway, I expect very little of Obama's administration, if he can so much as halt the collapse of the country, I'll consider it Herculean and praise him for that.

DannyDMc

DannyDMc

Fargo, ND
July 2003

DEC 23, 2008 09:37 AM

OhSoOrdinary said:

Subrosa said:
Obama has made the following things part of his platform, and/or has supported them from time to time:
-Repealing DADT
-Repealing DOMA
-A national civil unions law
That's the most aggressive and inclusive gay rights policy in our nation's history, even as thin as it is.

Now, I'm disappointed in Warren's inclusion as well and my foremost reservation about Obama has always been his namby-pamby stance on gay marriage. It's silly and a cop out and he should know better. However, I'm going to wait until I see him fail to live up to those stated policy goals before I say that he is "tossing gay Americans off the boat." Those are the things that are important to me, not some token speaking slot at a party.



And again, you say it better than I ever would.



Once again, I agree. Damn those of you who are better at wording, and know certain issues, better than myself!

Hussein

Hussein

I'm lost
March 2004

DEC 23, 2008 09:58 AM

It's worth reading what Melissa Etheridge has to say about Warren.

Horrorflick

Horrorflick

Detroit, MI
February 2003

DEC 23, 2008 10:26 AM

Relax, everybody. The man hasn't even taken the oath yet. He'll have plenty of time to prove that he's just a politician and not the answer everyone is looking for...

puke

Horrorflick

Horrorflick

Detroit, MI
February 2003

DEC 23, 2008 10:28 AM

Hussein said:
It's worth reading what Melissa Etheridge has to say about Warren.



That makes me feel all warm and squishy inside. (Sniff, brushes an imaginary tear away from an imaginary cheek...)

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 23, 2008 10:48 AM

i think Rick Warren was actually a really good choice. that's not to say i like Warren for his stance on homosexuality; i disagree with him strongly in that regard. but Warren is an intelligent, compassionate man who has built a ministry based on intelligence and compassion. he made one minor misstep that's become a soundbite--which, as i recall, is the same bullshit we were all happy to see Obama brushing off his shoulders.

and Warren has huge, huge appeal to the conservatives--who are, and will remain, a powerful force i the US, whether you (or i) like it or not.

i really don't understand why everyone is so shocked about the people Obama is choosing to help him with the presidency, from the invocator at his inauguration to his cabinet picks. far-left liberals got this idea, somewhere, that Obama was basically going to kick all the conservatives--fiscal and social--into the ocean as soon as he got into office. Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do: working with everyone to fix the problems.

Quella

Quella

USA
July 2008

DEC 23, 2008 10:59 AM

motorfirebox said:
i think Rick Warren was actually a really good choice. that's not to say i like Warren for his stance on homosexuality; i disagree with him strongly in that regard. but Warren is an intelligent, compassionate man who has built a ministry based on intelligence and compassion. he made one minor misstep that's become a soundbite--which, as i recall, is the same bullshit we were all happy to see Obama brushing off his shoulders.

and Warren has huge, huge appeal to the conservatives--who are, and will remain, a powerful force i the US, whether you (or i) like it or not.

i really don't understand why everyone is so shocked about the people Obama is choosing to help him with the presidency, from the invocator at his inauguration to his cabinet picks. far-left liberals got this idea, somewhere, that Obama was basically going to kick all the conservatives--fiscal and social--into the ocean as soon as he got into office. Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do: working with everyone to fix the problems.



I couldn't be a bigger supporter of Barack, and yes, everything Subrosa brilliantly said.

But it's crazytalk to think Rick Warren has had one bad soundbite. He has made homophobic remarks repeatedly, and then some.

Nevertheless, I have to confess to wanting to dream that BO chose this guy in an attempt to woo and court him, seducing him with a more liberal view, and eventually count him as an ally in the struggle to cement civil rights for the gay community.

As Melissa said


Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.



Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next