More on Warren and Obama

Here's some more thoughts on Warren and Obama. As the national dialog continues, I really do see a lot of good coming from this: (this is originally posted on the William Penn House blog)

I often find myself, as the "gay guy who has worked with evangelicals", being asked my opinion about Rick Warren being such a visible part of the upcoming inauguration. Here are some of my responses:

1. I fully understand the disappointment and anger, especially on the heels of the passage of Proposition 8.

2. I'm not sure it's fair to say that Obama has "turned" on anything as much as partisans on the left (including glbt advocates) were blinded by their own zeal. Obama has been to Saddleback a few times (including HIV testing w/Sen Brownback a few years ago). Obama never said he supports same-sex marriage - in fact he has said the opposite. He certainly never claimed to make gay rights a priority.

3. I'm not sure that Obama is simply trying to woo people who did not support him. Obama won California fairly easily, but Prop 8 also passed. Clearly, many Obama supporters voted for Prop 8. I'm guessing if Obama were more assertive about gay rights, he would have had a narrower victory.

4. On a more "Quaker" level, anger is divisive. Is it our role, as Quakers, to necessarily have to choose sides on this issue, or can we find a more loving response? Rather than lament and fight, what if we were to instead say "this decision has been made. What is ours to do now?"

5. I think the gay community would do well to understand that there have been so many advancements over the past decade that society needs a rest. We are on a positive course without a doubt, and within ten years all will be well. In the meantime, let's step up responsibility rhetoric, rather than rights. An example? Let's step up HIV-prevention. There's too much complacency and even complicitness in the gay bars, pornography, and internet. We cannot simply sit back and blame the government for the continuing spread of HIV in the gay community.

6. Finally, I think the Warren announcement gives pause: let's look at the entirety of this person and of the movement. Much is being exposed. Warren has done a lot for poverty and AIDS. He (and moreso his wife, Kay) have talked of being open and loving to people with AIDS. How does this settle with judgment of those at-risk for HIV: do they need to get HIV for us to care? Warren has also been clear that his belief does come with questioning. In addition, I know many evangelical Christians who are also upset by this announcement, and also many non-evangelicals who have really liked Warren's work and now are re-thinking that because they did not know his stance on glbt marriage. Anything that exposes where we truly are in society, I think is a good thing.

Basically, I think this, along with the passage of Prop 8, are quickly going to be "2steps back, 4 steps forward". We are already seeing this as a new level of dialog has emerged about gay rights, the fullness of people like Rick Warren, how he differs from the Pat Robertson/James Dobson crowd, and the hypocricy of being a "leader" in the fight against AIDS while being against gay rights. An example is Frank Rich's column (12/28/08) where he says: "Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for 'people who have H.I.V./AIDS.' Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card. That Bush finally joined Bono in doing the right thing about AIDS in Africa does not mitigate the gay-baiting of his 2004 campaign, let alone his silence and utter inaction when the epidemic was killing Texans by the thousands, many of them gay men, during his term as governor." Bringing the long needed discussion of the separation of AIDS work from the people who get HIV/AIDS and how they get it to the forefront can only be a good thing.

I think, ultimately, a lot of good can come from this. What will only delay the progress from here is letting anger get the best of us.

Rick Warren, Obama and gays

One of the big stories today is that Rick Warren is going to be doing the invocation at the Presidential inauguration next month. Many gay rights groups and supporters are up in arms, and have every right to be. Warren's church is in California, the state that just passed Prop 8. You can be pretty certain that most of Rick's congregation supported the measure, and if he just said the word, thousands would have voted the other way. So I fully understand why people are upset and disappointed with Obama for choosing Warren, and think the timing is a bit like throwing salt on the wounds.

But, I also see many good things that might come of this. See, I think what Obama may be most effective at doing early in his term as president is to further expose the world for what it is, and then bring healing to it with his compassion. Let's take this example:

First, thanks to the announcement today, Rick Warren has all of a sudden had to become much more accountable for his stand on gay rights. I'm sure that many people who have admired Rick's work - from his AIDS and poverty work to his book "A Purpose-Driven Life" did not know his stance on gay rights. In fact, I know many people who are staunch gay rights supporters and love Rick's work. Exposing this is not a bad thing. As Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy, "you got some 'splainin to do". Specifically, now Warren and perhaps many of his ilk will have more pressure to consider the dilemma: how do you maintain a stance that we need greater compassion for and inclusiveness of people with HIV/AIDS, while at the same time, condemn the very people who are most likely to get HIV in the US. Do gay people have to get HIV in order for them to become welcome? Does AIDS make someone more worthy of compassion? If that's so, how are we to stop the spread of HIV?

Second, what this announcement may also expose is the limits of Rick's reach within the emergent evangelical movement. Most of the people I know from that movement (granted, not a tone, but certainly some that are well-connected) are disappointed with this selection and would have preferred Jim Wallis. This will certainly bring greater scrutiny to just how progressive Warren is.

But, what is the right response from Quakers? Should we align with Human Rights Campaign, denounce the decision, and be angry and disappointed? Perhaps, as humans, these are understandable. But I think that the Quakerly presence calls us to look inside - especially those of us who are gay and lesbian - to acknowledge our hurt, to own it, and to speak to it. But then, let's reach out to accept this gesture of reaching out. Clearly, there are many issues that Obama and Warren do not agree on. Obama, back in 2006, took a lot of heat for going to Saddleback church to speak about HIV and to get tested there with Sen. Brownback of Kansas. The thing is, Obama has not changed his stance on issues - from stem cell/reproductive rights, to gay rights. It's important to keep in mind that he has never said he is for gay marriage - in fact he has said the opposite, although if the courts decide otherwise (as they did in California) he would be ok with that. The ability to join together despite differences is important these days.

As for gay rights and gay marriage, the day is coming. I actually think this announcement today is another step in that direction. I'm sure there will be many on the far right who will be denouncing Warren for being a part of the inauguration as well. As RF Kennedy said, one out of five people will always be against whatever you do. Let's try to be a part of the other 80%, but at the same time, be clear about who we are at all times and hold our heads high. I have found that if we hold that within ourselves, we can find ourselves seated at the table with people like Warren, sitting as equals.