I am outraged that so many liberals and progressives are outraged at the dissatisfaction expressed by gays and lesbians over Barack Obama's choice of "America's pastor" to open the inaugural celebration that all of us, gay and straight, made possible.
It's like playing your heart out all season, winning the championship game, then having your team captain throw you his wet towel as he raises the fist of the opposing team's dirtiest player and takes a victory lap without you. Feel free to cheer from the bleachers if you want to join the party.
In his attempts to erase a long association with Jeremiah Wright, the president-elect apparently intends to leave no bridge uncrossed in pursuing a fleeting acceptance of sorts from the religious right. For a self-described "fierce advocate" of gay rights, looking past Rick Warren for a less divisive pastor should have been an easy call. Instead, Obama intentionally chose a direct route to the political right through America's most prominent peddler of intolerance wrapped in religiosity. And, what better bridge for their self-acclaimed stroll across the great divide than the bodies of the group with nowhere to go -- the one group whose protests at being used would be met with various degrees of misunderstanding, thinly-veiled contempt, or worse.
After waiting for eight long years for the sun to rise again, Americans will awaken to see inauguration morning turned into a political statement by Barack Obama: I'm bigger than the sum of all the parts that created my place in history, so get used to my definition of the "moderate middle" while you liberals go fight amongst yourselves. And the sniping and infighting, entirely predictable, is exactly what has happened. Another calculation fulfilled: Obama gets to put the most defenseless element of his "base" on the sacrificial alter, Rick Warren is awarded another star of moderation in his crown of legitimacy, the political right is redefined as the broad middle -- and gays and lesbians become "the extreme left" to some, and self-centered, party-pooping crybabies to others. Except for that little fly in the ointment, the Warren anointing is reason enough for one big celebration of unity through diversity.
One group of Obama voters -- the group defined by Rev. Warren as the "two percent" whose rights he equates roughly to incest, pedophilia and polygamy -- convinced themselves for a brief moment that the election of 2008 might inaugurate a new dispensation of hope. Without warning, however, they were left to wonder about promises, to fight over symbolism or substance, and to question the depth of support they can expect from political allies. Preparing to cross the bridge to a brighter landscape, they became the bridge. Some who had thought that Obama, and perhaps even the majority of his followers, shared their values of full citizenship for all are now being marginalized, ridiculed and mocked for taking offense at what is seen as a betrayal of their trust.
A "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian rights" does not offer comfort and empowerment to the country's leading advocate against gay rights. I applaud inclusion, philosophical and political debate, crossing party lines to accomplish mutual goals, and disagreement without physical contact. Using the inauguration platform to embrace and hold close a celebrity preacher who writes about the love of God but practices the politics of hate is none of those. It is, pure and simple, the elevation of a religious bigot to broader acceptance of his diminishing minority at the expense of another minority still struggling to attain equality.
Attacks from our enemies and indifference from strangers we can endure. It's the lack of empathy from friends that hurts. Accusations to the contrary, I do get the big picture. Whatever our positions and circumstances in life, we can always find a greater inequity or public need that calls out for remedy. Someone told me to "try living under a bridge for size." I'm sorry if that person was emailing from under a bridge to make the point that anything other than concern for the homeless is irrelevant. Yet I haven't observed very many political observers withholding criticism of political decisions, great or small, simply because of more pressing issues. We're free to criticize political pandering whenever and wherever we see it -- unless it comes at the expense of gays and lesbians. And then we're told to sit down, shut up and get over it for the good of all. Wait and see, we're told: something good will happen. When you speak up you become your own worst enemy.
Gays and lesbians are not a monolithic group. Some speak out, some don't -- as I did not for too many years. We function as members of many communities -- personal, professional and social, gay, straight and mixed (not to mention uncertain). We experience the same hardships, difficulties and prejudices as everyone else, and then some. So please don't judge the group, or individuals within the group, too harshly. We are not whiners; we are not all "gay leaders looking for a fight;" we contribute our skills, talents and resources to the betterment of society; we pay our taxes, subsidize the benefits packages and retirement plans of our coworkers while being shortchanged ourselves. We serve our country and support charities; we have no desire to take anything away from our heterosexual brothers and sisters; we cry when you cry and bleed when we're cut. So if we occasionally express disappointment that others would minimize, if we resent being made the butt of jokes -- or at being used for political triangulation -- don't be surprised by a few outcries of pain and anger.
The Warren decision sends a clear message to America, but it's the wrong message. If, as we are led to believe, this is an entirely insignificant event that counts for nothing -- just a three-minute blessing of a new administration pledged to extend equality to all -- then why do it over the strong objections of those most maligned by the blesser? Who's kidding whom? How would progressives who criticize objections to Warren's invocation have reacted toward George Bush if he had granted Jerry Falwell a prime position in either of his inaugurations? Or if John McCain, heaven forbid, had made up with Jerry Falwell and visited Bob Jones University? (Oh, he did -- and what happened?) What makes Rick Warren more acceptable than Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, John Hagee or Rod Parsley? Why was the Bush-McCain hug symbolic, but the Obama-Warren embrace is not?
Numerous gays, including me, supported president-elect Obama's candidacy from the beginning, and even more voted for him in the general election. I will continue to back him when he's right -- and to disagree when I believe he's wrong.
Perhaps marginalizing me and others like me will serve a temporary political purpose for the preacher and the president. Whatever President Obama does to curry favor, however, will never be enough to appease the bigots of the world for long. He may as well go ahead and do the right thing from the beginning: dance with them that brung him.
Posts
