Yes, we can.

[BarTopDancer]

Obama Defends Invocation by Conservative Pastor

"I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on in my presidency," Obama said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. "What I've also said is that it is important for American to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues."

Obama told reporters that he appreciated Warren's invitation to speak at the his church "despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his" on gay rights and abortion. "Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to speak," Obama said. "And that dialogue has been part of what my campaign is all about."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm angry, I sent my 2 cents in, I even posted it on my my.barackobama site.

That said, I am resigned to the fact that Obama wants to talk to everyone, and wants to alienate no one. Remember how angry people got at his willingness to talk to enemy heads of state? This can be seen as a similar conundrum. Interesting perspective. Can't say I totally agree but there's some truth in there to Obama's MO.

I'm not happy, though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm sorry, there's a difference between acknowledging and talking to everyone vs. affording someone a place of honor. You can do the former without doing the latter.

[JWBear]

To me, it's like inviting a KKK leader to speak. Completely unacceptable.

[wendybeth]

I agree that this is an incredibly poor choice. I hope people make that loud and clear for Obama and his team of advisers- this is no more acceptable than it would have been were Rev. Wright chosen for the task. Very, very disappointed here.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well since I've already offered an unpopular opinion, I'll go ahead and offer another.

The day will come when gay people have the right to marry, I'm sure of that. It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process.

I know plenty of religious people that found it in their heart to vote against Prop 8, because they understood that it was the right thing to do, even if their religion told them otherwise. And I heard many of these same people say, once the protests started, that they were no longer sure that they had voted correctly. For regardless of their vote, they were all demonized just for belonging to a church that, in many cases, they disagreed with on this issue. And I have to wonder, if the vote was held again today, would the votes for prop 8 decrease or actually increase, based on the subsequent anger that was shown towards anyone who dared to belong to one of these churches.

I think that achieving gay rights is a vital cause. But, at the risk of offending people, I think the way people are going about it is too often misguided at best, harmful at worst. It's kind of like what I tell some of my religious friends - when you get in people's faces and tell them they are horrible, you alienate and turn off far more people than you convert. Often, I think we are guilty of the same thing.

For left to their own devices, the church was doing a piss-poor job of keeping their bigotry alive. Each year, more and more people were supporting gay rights, because their heart told them something different than the church was telling them. In my opinion, change was moving more quickly than it is now. And then, when Prop 8 failed to be defeated, things got mighty ugly and through their anger and disappointment, many opponents of the Proposition began going way over the top in their insults towards religious people. I honestly think the nasty reaction to the aftermath of Prop 8 potentially set progress back by 5 years. And that really sucks.

As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military. And should he succeed, it is going to royally piss off plenty on the other side. On the flip side, Obama is giving a man with an opposing viewpoint the time to say a three minute prayer. Sounds like, overall, one side is going to eventually make out far better here as a result of Obama's presidency and it isn't the pastor's side I speak of. I will wait before I demonize Obama on this issue. I want to see what he has in store first.

Finally, my intention honestly is not to demean everyone who was involved in these protests. I understand where their hearts were, I understand their disappointment and anger, of which I most certainly shared. And most importantly, I understand and dearly appreciate that the reason they stood there with those signs was to help me achieve the same rights as everyone else. But I don't think that the specific signs that ridiculed people with religious beliefs, or boycotts that had the potential of hurting good employers, or refusing to be a guest at a straight person's wedding are the answers. I think they are reactions based on anger and pain alone, rather than ideas that are ever going to be truly effective. I see some of this as a massive PR failure.

Again, I agree with the cause; I don't agree with many of the tactics that I've seen, even if I sympathize with the reasons behind them.

[scaeagles]

MBC, what a great post. I could almost take that word for word but change the subject matter to abortion to express my feelings toward that.

It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree with much of MBC's post and am especially grateful for the chance to have "In the Navy" playing through my head in what is otherwise a pokey mornning.

Today it is reported that, as with the death penalty, we are once again a light to the world as, alone among western nations, we have refused to sign a non-binding UN resolution recommending that laws criminalizing homosexuality be repealed. We supposedly cited "legal concerns." I'm not a big fan of nonbinding resolutions, but it would be nice to hear Obama say that he agrees with the substance of the resolution.

[Alex]

People may not change their minds after being yelled but governments frequently do (and all I really care about is government). But I do agree that many aspects of the protests have been misguided from a PR angle.

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

As for the big tent it doesn't strike me as surprising that the symbolism of a purely symbolic invitation is being taken seriously. Quite clearly the calculus was that upsetting one smaller group that has nowhere else to go politically (it isn't like the gay lobby can run to the Republicans with their support) was acceptable to mildly appease a larger group that barely supports him. If his ultimate real actions are good and this loosens the ropes for him to accomplish those goals then it'll have been a properly placed bet.

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

Here's my issue with the selection. As I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios.

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.

or

2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."

Either one says that he simply does not care about the movement for gay rights, and either one deserves a loud response that everyone will hear.

Of course, there's always the conspiratorial 3rd option.

3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.

It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process.

I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.