The Columbian gives cover to Radical Homophobic Agenda

It seems that The Columbian equates giving religious fundamentalist fringe “a seat at the table” with bestowing a high honor on one of its leaders. The following is my response to their latest Cheers & Jeers:

After the hyperpartisanship and ideologically driven policy that marked the outgoing administration there is no disagreement that it is a necessary and admirable endeavor for Obama to be gracious in victory and try to reach out to those who did not support his candidacy, even as some of them are already working to undermine the efficacy of a nascent Obama Administration in these times of deep domestic economic crisis and international strife. I wholeheartedly support Obama taking leadership of restoring the state of public discourse which has become so corrosive in American society when it comes to political differences of opinion. Just as he has pledged his willingness to talk to hostile and adversarial leaders of other nations he should be equally willing to hold audiences with all Americans and not just those of common political stripe.

The problem, however, lies not with Obama’s invitation of someone who did not support his candidacy per the oversimplified frame offered by The Columbian editorial board. The problem is not that Obama aspires to instill in all Americans a sense of inclusion as he is inaugurated next month. This is consistent with Obama’s cathartic address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and with a general theme of his campaign that there are no Red States or Blue States but only the United States. The fact is that Rev. Warren is not just another guest or participant at the inauguration but will have the honor of delivering the invocation. Implicit in this honor is a recognition of his spiritual legitimacy–someone who has equated abortion with the Holocaust and, more significantly, puts homosexuality and the issue of legal recognition for same sex couples in a category with bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and polygamy.

The latter is a favorite talking point of Rev. Warren and other marriage equality opponents. The comparison of a relationship between two consenting adults, who happen to be of the same gender, with that of an adult with either an animal or child, neither of whom are either legally or logically capable of giving consent, should be too ridiculous on its face to require further discussion among intelligent adults. Incest and polygamy are separate issues to be argued on their own merits or lack thereof. This is but one example of the intellectual dishonesty used by advocates of marriage bans and other homophobia-driven policy. Only the “uber-liberals”, however, are visible on the hysteria radar of The Columbian editorial board.

It is not Rev. Warren’s beliefs, however, that should have disqualified him from having conferred on him this high honor. A search for any one person who would be in agreement with everybody on the most visible issues of the day, let alone with the President Elect, would be a fools errand. It is Warren’s actions as informed his extreme beliefs that should have kept his name off the table. The most recent example manifestation of those extreme beliefs would be Warren’s active support for Proposition 8 which revoked the right of same sex couples to have the same legal recognition as heterosexual couples and the attenuating rights and responsibilities thereof.

Same sex marriage bans are often described by its critics as legalized discrimination, which is true but irrelevant. There is nothing inherently nefarious with laws that discriminate. Nobody would disagree that we should have minimum legal age for voting rights or driving privileges, for example (though there may be debate in what that age should be). We don’t allow felons to carry firearms. Most reasonable people would agree that there is a compelling public interest in having such discriminatory legislation. No such compelling public interest, however, exists with the assault on the dignity of the GLBT community by denying them marriage equality. Simply put, same sex marriage bans is not just legalized discrimination but is legalized bigotry and is fully endorsed by Rev Warren.

If inclusion is the overriding argument on the eve of swearing in the first elected president of this century then it would only be fair to recognize the disenfranchisement of the Pride community as a result of last month’s elections, with three more states (two of them among the country’s most populous) passing some form of same sex marriage bans. Is it realistic to be all inclusive if it means placating extreme fundamentalists with the administering of the invocation by Rev. Warren–a man who for many is an icon for open hostility toward GLBT persons not just for his beliefs but for his resulting actions? I guess Those Queers will just have to wait a little bit longer to feel welcome by the new administration. Here’s an idea: why not make the invocation a two person affair and invite a minister from the GLBT community?

The Columbian says it’s Obama’s party and he can invite Warren if he wants to but this argument overlooks another frequent Obama refrain: that his campaign (and by extension his presidency) is not about him but about all of us. If that still carries any weight then so should the profound reservations by many of his grassroots supporters of Rev. Warren as invocation minister.

I hope that Obama and Biden are correct in their political calculus behind conferring this honor on Rev. Warren as a necessary step to starting a dialog with him and other extreme fundamentalists. Perhaps this creates an opening that allows us as a society to allow the dignity of equality under rule of law while recognizing simultaneously the First Amendment right of religious organizations to hold exclusionary views and doctrine. A more likely result, however, is the empowerment of the religious right to advance their homophobic agenda and a greater legitimacy that the corporate media will ascribe to the inevitable barrage of criticism of the Obama Administration that can be expected of Rev. Warren.

Jeers to The Columbian editorial board for conveniently ignoring (or being completely oblivious) the substantive issues surrounding the complaints of Rev. Warren’s selection. Instead it complacently dismisses these concerns as nothing more than the rants of “closed-minded [and] agenda-driven uber-liberals”. Too bad the board eschews in its own editorials the spirit of post-partisanship for which it lauds our next President.