I've read with interest the discussion about Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration. While I can understand the concern about this development, I feel there is more of a silver lining than Kos or others have considered.
In agreeing with another blogger, kos said:
Yeah. Where is David Duke's invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!
I think this position is short-sighted and wrongly equates today's gay rights debate with the fringe that is today's racially-based hate groups.
Follow below the fold for my reasoining
Kos rightly points out the Obama has used the uproar over this development to reaffirm his support for gay rights. I think this is a critical part of Obama's strategy on this and many issues. Obama has said that he will engage in dialogue with many people that disagree with him. His position, as I see it, is that only through open communication can we have movement on an issue.
The David Dukes of this world lost their battle many years ago. While there are many pockets of hate in this country, the vast majority of American's recognize the need for equal rights for all races. The same can not be said of gay rights. We have great work to do before we can say that the vast majority are on board with the idea that gays should have equal rights. While we disagree on certain issues, Rick Warren does good work. He represents thousands who would help many causes if we can gain their support. The same can not be said of David Duke. Giving David Duke a seat at the table would only revisit issues we have already put to bed. While Obama could distance himself from Warren and others, doing so would close down the line of communication we need in order to make progress on the gay rights issue today.
In the 1940s Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
He participated in the KKK, fought agianst desgregation, and, much later, admitted he was wrong:
I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times...and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.
He fought against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
His Wikipedia entry says:
In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP)[43] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100 percent for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd[44] proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."
In short, Byrd came around over time.
There were probably lots of folks calling for Byrd to be eliminated from the debate back in the 1960s. Yet, for one reason or another, he stayed a part of the discussion and retained his seat. In the process he came around and brought countless others with him. So much so that, in 2008 there was a time we thought West Virginia might actually be in play. In the end Barack Obama got over than 300,000 votes and more than 43% of votes cast in West Virginia. While work remains, Robert Byrd's support and transformation certainly had something to do with the process.
Maybe Rick Warren will never come to our side in this discussion, but there is a chance. However, if he and his kind (those who do good works but disagree with us on this issue) are eliminated from the discussion, then we can never hope to convert them.
While some might suggest that you can keep someone "in the discussion" while keeping them out of a high profile position as Warren is getting, I only suggest that perhaps this will hasten the pace of conversion.
And consider this: might there be some folks on the other side of this debate - folks against gay rights who look at Warren't willingness to speak at Obama's inauguration as an afront to all they believe in - who can't imagine why Warren would do something like this for Obama? Lets pretend for a minute that Warren loses support from those folks? Who is left? People who might encourage Warren to embrace gay rights. And what of the people who follow Warren but are indifferent to the gay rights issue. Perhaps this opens up an avenue to speak with these folks.
And if not, what harm has been done?