Back when President-elect Barack Obama was merely presidential candidate Barack Obama, he made, as all politicians do, several promises to the electorate. The most transcendent of these was, of course—all together, now—change. Change, specifically, from the heated partisan rhetoric that, most Americans agree, has sullied the quality of our discourse and compromised the efficacy of our political system. Change from everyone’s favorite political bugaboo, The Politics of the Past. Change from where we are to where we can go from here.
Obama followed through on that promise yesterday when he announced that Rick Warren—celebrity pastor and, most recently, Prop 8 advocate—would deliver the invocation at Obama’s inaugural.
And People. Are. Really. Pissed.
Obama the sellout! Obama the ingrate! Obama the betrayer! “I actually trusted the guy,” wrote the blogger John Aravosis. “I know, stupid me.”
I disagree with many of Warren’s beliefs. I agree with some others. But: It doesn’t really matter what I think of Warren, or, for that matter, what you think of Warren. It matters what we—the transcendent, collective We—all think of Warren. And what, in regards to the pastor’s most recent lightning rod, we all think about gay marriage. Like it or not, according to recent Pew polling, 49 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. (Our president- and vice-president-elect are, by the way, among them.) And, for that matter, only 39 percent support gay marriage. It’s that ratio that, on inauguration day, matters. Because the inauguration is a day not just for individual Americans, but also, and more so, for America—a day about the ideas that unite us, about the experiment we’re all a part of, about our differences as well as our commonalities. And, more to the point, about the fact that the American idea is based on the fact that differences need not become divisions.
“It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation,” Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese declared in a Washington Post op-ed today. “And the Obama campaign’s response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we’re also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade.”
First, that wasn’t really their response. Second, when Solmonese writes that the choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation “makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too,” one can’t help recall Obama’s record—and the fact that he’s been, throughout the campaign, up-front about not supporting gay marriage. (He supports civil unions.) The shock/indignation/outrage we’re witnessing today may be genuine, but, for that, it’s also overdue. It seems, in short, a specimen more of knee-jerk umbrage than true surprise.
Hey, commentators: If we’re going to transcend partisan rancor, we’re going to have to do more than pay lip service to transcending partisan rancor. We’re going to have to move beyond the impulse toward knee-jerk partisanship—his views offend me! I’m pissed! I’m going to tell everyone just how pissed I am!—and toward conciliation. We’re going to have to re-draw the line between tolerance and conviction when it comes to each others’ deeply held beliefs.
That’s not to disparage the passion of individual conviction: The only thing worse than our current partisan antipathy would be bipartisan apathy. But it is to say that, in this republic of ours, my individual views—no matter how flagrantly and patently superior, obviously, they may be—count just as much as yours. If we’re going to have the National Conversation everyone claims to want, we’re going to have to be comfortable hearing—and, yes, tolerating—views that differ from our own. Even if those views make us want to tear our hair out and scream at the top of our lungs. That’s the deal democracy makes with itself.

If Rick Warren simply opposed gay marriage, we wouldn't be so upset about his role in the inauguration. But Rick Warren has gone beyond that and equated gay marriage (and thus, obviously, all gay relationships) with bigamy, incest, and pedophilia. Someone who calls me the equal of a bigamist or a pedophile is a bigot, pure and simple, and has no place on a national stage.
As for inclusiveness, Rick Warren's Saddleback Church will not permit "someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle" to join the church. Why does Obama feel the need to include and reach out to someone who clearly has no interest in inclusion, but instead only in division?
Posted by AndyHat on Fri 19 Dec 2008 at 09:26 PM
Your argument that Obama was right in handing this honor to Rick Warren because 49% of Americans oppose gay marriage is irrelevant. Some things follow from fundamental principles. One of these is that we are all equal under the law; that we all share the same rights. In religion this is commonly known as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.")
One need not be gay to see that denying the right of marriage to gay people fundamentally violates this basic principle, and it matters not one jot that 49% of Americans are wrong about it. I'm sure that you would find that majorities or large minorities supported slavery, opposed universal suffrage, etc. All wrongheaded positions that violated the same fundamental principle.
My disappointment with Obama (and you) is not that he feels the need to include Warren and his followers, but that he fails to see this fundamental violation of one of our most basic moral, legal and religious principles. Unity in the absence of principle is worthless.
Posted by Ramon Creager on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 12:18 AM
Did you actually read this piece before commenting on it? Or any of what Obama has said? He's not endorsing any views - except dialogue from all sides.
Or perhaps the best way to fight intolerance is with intolerance...
Posted by David Pacheco on Sun 21 Dec 2008 at 08:36 PM
To say Rick Warren opposes gay marriage is like saying a Klansman disapproves of integrated schools. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Warren thinks gays must remain celebate and deserve no protection from discrimination. And it's not just gays -- a clip has surfaced of him telling a Jewish woman that Jews go to hell because they are not saved.
He's no different than Jerry Falwell. He's not tolerant, he's just polite about his bigotry.
Posted by LC on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 09:51 AM
I totally agree with the author, Megan Garber, on this one. The problem with turning around and stigmatizing Rick Warren, Christians, Mormons, etc., while saying that they should practice the Golden Rule is that the Golden Rule then turns around and bites you in the butt. By pouring vitriol onto them, you're saying that you want them to pour more vitriol onto you. Clearly this is not the case.
We don't need to hate one group of people in order to stop hating another. That's not solving society's problems; it's only changing the problems' location. Really, the Christian teaching that should be applied here is "turn the other cheek." By inviting Rick Warren, Obama has shown that he is above all the childish bickering that goes on in the name of "rational discourse." Particularly for gays, this maturity will be a blessing if the tide ever turns against them further, because Obama has shown that he is the man for inclusion—he even includes people that aren't easily construed as being inclusive themselves.
Clearly with Obama in the driver's seat, he will be an asset for gays even as he placates all the other children. I'm excited for that: a president that doesn't simply push through his agenda but actually Leads. Everybody. Right or Left. ... and best of all won't tolerate any nonsense to the contrary.
Far from making a mistake, Obama has shown that he's after substantial (let's get rid of hate) and not just superficial (let's change who's being hated) change. Such inclusion on Obama's part will lead to unity better than ideological compulsion ever will.
Posted by Joseph Sowa on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:39 AM
Well, Megan perhaps you can explain why it is that every time Obama is reaching out it's toward the right. Is his left arm broken or something?
The idea that Obama is so far to the left that he needs to reach out exclusively to the right is laughable. Your own article states that opposition to gay marriage is a majority position as well as the one held by both Obama and Biden. Obama is a Christian and so is Warren. So why does he feel the need to reach out to Warren and his supporters? As a non-believer who supports gay marriage on principle (even though I have no personal stake in it) it looks to me as if Obama is circling the wagons with the like-minded rather than reaching out to those he disagrees with. How about he invites Sam Harris to provide some balance?
I'm getting real tired of people making excuses for Obama's rightward leanings. The apologetics we're hearing on this issue are the same ones we've already heard with respect to Obama's support of the FISA cave-in, the Wall St swindler bailout and so on.
Obama's "post-partisan" strategy reminds me of Dukakis' claim that the 1988 election was "not about ideology" but about "competence". How did that work out? If inviting Warren really is about trying to win street cred with the right wing I doubt it will work any better than Dukakis' tank ride. Obama and the Democrats might try to abandon ideology or partisanship but that doesn't mean the other side will walk away from their ideology or partisanship. And they'll label the Democrats as ideological and partisan in any case.
I submit that there is no useful middle ground between a reality-based ideology that promotes social welfare, economic justice, environmental sanity and a foreign policy based on peace and diplomacy and the deluded, sociopathic, reality denial that forms the current right-wing ideology. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, partisanship in service of good ideas is no vice and post-partisanship in the service of ideas that have failed spectacularly and brought our country to ruin is no virtue.
Posted by PD on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 09:51 PM