?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Dec. 19th, 2008 @ 12:09 pm I know the elections are over but this has been eating at me
By now anyone who follows politics knows the outrage over Obama's choice of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. This is seen as a thumb in the eye to lesbians, gays and transgendered Americans who supported Obama, mainly because Warren does not support gay marriage and has other controversial views on the subject.

But Obama has made no secret he is friends with Warren and actually disagrees with his views on these issues. Does that mean he made the wrong choice in picking Warren for this job?

In my view, absolutely not. It goes back to what Obama has said all along. He wants to be an inclusive, centrist leader. That's why he appointed rivals in the democratic primary to top posts, and why he is also filling top posts with Republicans.

In Warren's case, Obama hasn't even gone that far. He hasn't made him Czar of Marriage or given him any role where he'll have any influence over policy. He's just given him a platform which some in the gay community think he will use to bash gays. I really can't imagine Obama would invite someone who would preach bigotry during a presidential inauguration so I'm not holding my breath for the anti-gay rant.

The president is trying to make a point about inclusiveness, that people can work together without agreeing on every issue. I don't suppose it matters much to gays that he's allowing an openly gay and lesbian band to march in his inaugural parade, which is more than Bill Clinton did? Or that he's planning to do away with Don't Ask/Don't Tell, a stupid ill-conceived policy?

Whereas Bush only paid lip-service to being a Uniter and not a Divider (he was more of a Decider really), Obama is actually living up to what he said in his campaign. I find it remarkable that the liberal groups who most often complain about intolerance are themselves intolerant of other people's views.

I'm not saying I agree with what Warren has to say. But I appreciate that he, like Obama, is committed to an open and civil discussion about all the issues, even the ones on which the two men don't agree.

And if people who are angry about this think they'll find a greater friend in the other party, they're sadly mistaken. This will be the most progressive administration ever when it comes to gay rights. Gays and liberals shouldn't get hung up on the symbolism here; they'll appreciate the substance of what Obama does more.

And out.
 


About this Entry
Batman
smokystein:
[User Picture Icon]
From:neanahe
Date:December 19th, 2008 06:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
:)
[User Picture Icon]
From:k2rider78
Date:December 19th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Perhaps he (Obama) IS trying to iclude everyone. However, Rick Warren and others like him tend to exclude others in the first place, so there in lies the problem. I would like to hope that Obama's actions could have a positive affect on groups that are such polar opposites but I'm still skeptical.
[User Picture Icon]
From:theclamsman
Date:December 20th, 2008 01:44 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)

Obama's not going to move to lift DADT.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/21/breaking-obama-to-delay-dont-ask-dont-tell-action/

Yeah, he's going to wait until midterms so that if it all falls through, he can blame the Republicans.

Obama's interpretation of the word "inclusive" is disgusting, and has been all along. His inclusion of anti-gay crap for two years now has demonstrated that.
[User Picture Icon]
From:h0gwash
Date:December 20th, 2008 02:33 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Gays would be insane NOT to criticize Obama. Surely he can handle a little legitimate criticism.
[User Picture Icon]
From:smokystein
Date:December 20th, 2008 09:31 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Surely.