Remember the last time Barack Obama had a "pastor problem"? It was last March and concerned Jeremiah Wright. Obama realized that the heart of that controversy centered around issues concerning race, especially resentments among races. Obama initiated a dialogue on race with his now landmark speech, "A More Perfect Union".
It appears that President-elect Obama has a new "pastor problem" with Rick Warren. It's pretty clear Warren probably didn't vote for Obama because they differ on some very fundamental issues, but Obama said on election night in Grant Park that he wanted to be the President of all America, not just blue America. I would think that we supporters welcome Obama reaching out and building bridges. It's both the principled thing to do and good politics. Yet, understandably, many believe that there is a time and place for reaching out. If Obama and Warren share similar concerns on poverty and climate change, why not bring him in when action is being taken on those matters? And if Obama wants to include evangelical Christians in his Inauguration, why not reach out to leaders who hold less divisive views,as Amy Sullivan suggests?
Some have suggested - hell, demanded - that Warren be removed from delivering the Invocation, even going so far as trying to organize a website to stop Warren. I don't think this would be the best idea. Not only would it muddle Obama's stated intention of reaching out (however misguided many of us may feel the Warren choice has been for Obama's first attempt at bridge building), it would also give many Christianists and Republicans the chance to play the victim and wronged "minority" - a role they have learned to play quite skillfully and effectively. In addition, the media would blow the situation up and use it to overshadow everything Obama wants to achieve. That's what happened when Bill Clinton first took office and Republicans purposely pushed for the issue of gays in the military to be addressed in an effort to raise a hot button issue that would help slow down implementation of Clinton's agenda. The GOP's efforts were successful. Clinton backtracked and "compromised" by signing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, thus appearing weak and signaling he could rolled.
I want to suggest that we use l'affaire Rick Warren as a teachable moment, just as Obama did with the whole Reverend Wright brouhaha. Why not call for President Obama to initiate within the first six months of his Presidency a dialogue concerning GLBT issues? We could start a petition, whether on Change.gov or an independent site (I would start such a petition but I'm not that savvy when it comes to such on-line matters. I would gladly welcome someone else with more knowledge and experience launching on-line efforts to help with the mechanics.) The petition would ask Obama to use this opportunity to call together GLBT groups, leaders in medicine and psychology, academic leaders, religious leaders, politicians, military leaders, legal minds, and business leaders for a White House forum to openly and honestly discuss issues surrounding those in the GLBT community. Both those who support as well as those hostile to GLBT issues would be invited with the reassurance that the discussion would be civil and respectful, no matter how controversial the views expressed. Rick Warren prides himself on his civility and willingness to hear other points of views. How could he justify not participating in such a forum?
However, I want to stress that those of us who are staunch GLBT rights supporters have to bear in mind that we would have to keep up our end of the bargain when it comes to listening and allowing others to express their views and beliefs, no matter how misguided and repugnant we may believe some are. You can be sure those on the other side of the divide will feel the same way about our views and beliefs. We can expect talk about how only certain body parts were made by God to go together and how "the homsexual lifestyle" leads to STDs, HIV, and AIDS. There will be talk of promiscuity and drug use among gay men and expressions of disgust at public displays of overt sexuality and flamboyancy at gay pride parades. Religious leaders will discuss how their religion teaches them homosexuality is a sin and some will use the opportunity to equate homosexuality to pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. And of course there will be much consternation concerning issues of the transgender community - even among gays and lesbians. All this will come out before we can even address such things as hate crimes, work place discrimination, adoption, gays in the military, civil unions and gay marriage.
If Obama were to initiate such a dialogue, I understand the urgency many might feel to have Obama address this matter sooner rather than later. While I too would prefer it sooner rather than later, I would urge us to be patient. No President has come into office with as much on his plate as Obama will have. We may need to wait a few months before such an effort could be given the time and attention it deserves. I would rather have this done right rather than done quickly. I would think Americans would be more willing to engage in such a conversation once they feel that our economic and foreign affairs appear on the right track. Ideally our fellow Americans would realize that this matters greatly to other Americans, but let's be real: homosexuality is still very much misunderstood and not the first thing on most people's minds. And while there are similarities between the gay rights movement and other civil rights movements, we have to be honest that homosexuality is not such a black and white issue (pun intended). It's far easier to see the physical differences between races and genders and grasp the idea that such differences should not be treated differently under the law. Homosexuality is a far more complex and less tangible matter. Many still see it as merely a behavioral issue rather than a matter of immutable biology. Experience has taught us that understanding and acceptance of GLBTs comes through contact, dialogue, and familiarity.
At Huffington Post, Hilary Rosen captures the sentiment I am trying convey in a post called "Beyond Rick Warren":
The power of gay people is not in our numbers. It is in the number of people we touch. It is in families and workplaces and religious homes that allies are born and political progress is made. It is hard work to convince people that their interests are your interests. That when it comes to equal rights, we are all in this together. But that is the job the community must continue to do despite the setbacks and disappointments. Even when it appears that they don't get it, we must give our straight friends who want to be "fierce advocates for equality," the benefit of the doubt. We must give them our hands. And we must do the work together.
Andrew Sullivan eloquently makes similar points:
If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.
The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.
It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.
To which Glenn Greenwald responds:
Andrew's argument here is the one that Obama loyalists generally are making: yes, what Obama is doing might appear to be exactly the same as what Democrats have been doing since forever -- the accommodationist embrace of the Right, the effort to establish centrist credentials by scorning the Left, running away from cultural issues for fear of being depicted as amoral radicals, surrounding oneself with establishment and conservative figures, etc. etc. (Bill Clinton also had a Republican Defense Secretary). Yes, that may look exactly like what the capitulating Bush-era Democrats and the triangulating Bill "the Third Way!" Clinton spent years and years and years doing.
But this time, say Obama supporters, everything will be different.
This time, it's all being done for different -- for more noble -- purposes. When Obama does it, it's not merely a cynical political calculation the way it was when Dick Morris in the 1990s and Rahm Emanuel this decade did it. Instead, in Obama's hands, it's a master strategy for bringing the country together and transforming politics -- all to enable Obama to fulfill his authentically-issued promises and achieve his progressive goals.
As I said, it's certainly possible that will be true -- like many people, I hope it is -- but I would also hope, particularly in light of how familiar this strategizing seems, that people will demand some actual proof before believing in such lavish claims of transformative and transcendent change. People are suspicious of this sort of Democratic maneuvering precisely because they've seen it so many times in the past and know how it ends. It seems perfectly rational not to trust it until there is evidence that warrants that trust.
A theme central to Obama's entire campaign was the belief that we as a country can achieve our goals best when we reach across divides and engage one another, whether it is among races or among countries. Before we can even hope to enact laws that bring equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders, we need to talk among ourselves to dispel myths and reach common understanding. That can only happen if we first initiate open, honest, and respectful dialogue. Urging President Obama to initiate such a dialogue with an on-line petition would be consistent with the experiment that has been the Obama phenomenon.