You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / William White and the Warren Court
William White and the Warren Court
I understand why gay rights activists are upset with Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation. The man has a huge following and has used his pulpit to spread some extremely offensive opinions about homosexuality. It doesn't help that Prop 8 is still fresh in everyone's minds.
On the other hand, gay Americans (and everyone else) are going to have to come to the realization that we voted for a uniter. If you're a Democrat, then you voted for a uniter who is in the process of trying to make the Democratic Party into the permanent majority party. Both of these realities are going to cause a lot of heartache. If you have a big tent, chances are you're going to bring in a lot of people you disagree with.
There's a reason why many on the right are also upset with Warren for accepting the invitation-- they know this could give the Democrats an opening to court Evangelicals in areas where there's a lot of possible agreement. When Warren invited Barack out to Saddleback Church in 2006 to discuss the global AIDS crisis, the right was up in arms over that decision as well, wary of the Pastor giving the abortion rights-supporting Senator such a platform.
The fact is that Pastor Warren will not be serving in an Obama administration, and won't be making decisions for the Obama presidency. If anything, this pick gives Barack room to advance the rights and interests of homosexuals, by coming across yet again as less of a typical anti-Christian, anti-middle America lefty, and hopefully making some former opponents a little more amenable to his decisions. Many of those decisions will inevitably be good for gays and will move the nation closer to one that is accepting of homosexuals. There are now rumors floating about that Barack will choose William White-- an openly gay man-- to become the next Secretary of the Navy. While this position is a civilian post, it's hard to miss the symbolism here, or to understand what the choice could help accomplish.
If everything goes according to Barack's plans, eight years from now the Democratic Party will have a few more Evangelicals within its ranks, and there will be less animosity and discrimination towards gay Americans than there is today.
- John Martin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
That's what we call "separate but equal" and that's how this country continued to oppress blacks after slavery ended. What people don't understand is that by allowing our government to define marriage, it crosses the line between church and state. We should take the word "marriage" out of the law completely, and allow each individual church to define what marriage is or isn't.
Up until the early 1900s, it was up to the church to recognize what constituted marriage. It wasn't until there was a heavy influx of Catholic immagrants that the government got involved in recognizing marriage.
Joe Biden touched on this a little bit during his debate with Sarah Palin, and I have yet to see either of them elaborate on the issue since then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofq-N-8WAjY
If Joe Biden means what he's saying there, that is the constitutionally correct answer to the civil rights dilemma of the 21st century. Under this scenario, both gay and straight couples would fall under the legal protection of civil unions, and the ceremony of marriage would no longer be defined or confined by the rule of law.
meph, you are saying what we have been saying here. Let the civil, contract, part of a union be set by law, and then let each church or denomination define marriage according to their beliefs.
In today's world, there has to be some defining of a permanent partnership because of inheritance, insurance, and all of the other things of coupledom that are prescribed by law. Of course, if these unions end, they should also have to go through the same divorce proceedings couples have to today in order to determine property settlements, etc.
So we are in complete agreement, I believe.
That is correct, Suzi. I just wonder what your take is on Joe Biden's comments at the debate. I feel like what he said really flew under the radar, and hasn't really been discussed as much as it should be, at least by the MSM.
The only influence Obama may have on this issue is his SCOTUS appointments. What I think is interesting, is that it seems as if Justices Alito and Roberts are leaning towards the gays on this issue. I don't think Clarence Thomas would rule in favor of gay marriage, but I wonder how he would vote on the issue of allowing the government to define marriage. I just hope this isn't an issue in the 2016 presidential race.
Biden and Obama have been open about their beliefs, and have also stated that it is a state issue, and not a federal issue. So I don't really know what we could expect them to do about it, except as you said, with the judicial appointments. Unless it is possible to issue a federal "union license" that would be valid throughout the country, or require all states to issue that. I don't know where the line is drawn on state vs federal on that one.
Although this is a civil rights issue, comparing it to the civil rights movement is an over reaction. There is only one issue at hand here, and for the black population, there were more civil rights infringements than I could ever list here.
Well, it is a state's rights issue, but that's actually the right's argument against gay marriage as well. It was also the South's argument for justifying slavery.
While I agree that gays are not being persecuted in as severe a manner as blacks were, I think there are a lot of parallels between the two movements. The bottom line is that our country is progressing while traditionalists are standing in the way of said progress. Since this is an issue of civil rights, one cannot justify denying homosexuals the right to marriage under the guise of state's rights. The constitution was not only setup to protect Democracy, but also to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Meph, I'm not arguing that it's a state's rights issue, I told you what Obama has said about it. If there are laws that need to be changed concerning state's rights, that would be a separate issue.
As one who lived through the civil rights movement, your constant comparisons just leaves me shaking my head, even though I do support gay rights.
"Why not keep marriage for under God's law, and keep unions such as gay unions and rights under mans law That state all men are equal, and have equal rights under the law?"
Marriage *IS* man's law; before you get married you go the state to get your license, not the church. Marriage is a state sanctioned contract conceived for the pooling of assets and protection of any children and property in that contract (prior to that women were property and men were paid to marry women) That's why bride's parents get stuck paying for the wedding, a vestige of that archaic system. Moreover, when it's Splitsville that marriage is dissolved in court, again "man's" law, not God's law.
As for the dust-up with gay rights groups and the womens groups, I'm personally sick and tired of all the carping. Some people are NEVER satisfied. You'd think he invited Warren to write the new a catechism for the country in an effort to move us closer to theocracy. As for the women's groups..I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut cause I don't have anything nice to say becasue they remind me of Hillary's supporters.^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
I agree with your definition, BUT.....people got married long before such laws existed, or licenses were required. The word marriage just carried over into the law. For the sake of satisfying everyone, couldn't the two be separated.....get the license for the union of two people under the law, and the "blessing" or church ceremony be the sacramental marriage? This would not leave out the gay community, as there are churches willing to perform a marriage ceremony for gay or straight couples. I'm just trying to think of a compromise that would give equal rights to all, and leave religion totally out of it.
As for the rest of your post, I've said before....It's like people weren't paying attention during the campaign. Obama is doing just what he promised. It's a prayer, not a policy statement. Get over it, people!!
Why not simply call a church based wedding the spiritual blessing of a marriage. After all, a church can't perform a blessing if you don't have a license. A baptism in or out of a church is still a baptism and you don't have to be clergy to do that. The problem is the separation implies they are not equal. You know like with schools long ago, wink, wink.
The Bible like the U.S. Constitution means different things to different people when it's read and from those readings come man's interpretation, a being who, through God's will, is flawed.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
I see your point, and that works for me. Although my last thought, added to the original, would separate the two totally, giving churches the right to have the spiritual aspect without the license.
The bottom line is, and I am falling into the trap, is it's all about a word...one single word. What difference does it make? Thanks for making me see that. So, civil marriage and religious, spiritual, whatever marriage. Hmmm, isn't that what we have now, that gays are being excluded from? Lightbulb moment here!
I'm still pissed with Obama's decision on Warren.
But he his a master politician and I agree with your analysis John. I just don't want an alliance with the the same white church that were against interracial marriages or the civil rights movement and used the same rethoric.
This is our chance to break the political strangle-hold of the religious right.
They will always be on the wrong side of history
Stupid baby boomers.
I'm not a baby boomer, and you could hardly call me a "youth" at 40, so apparently, I'm not stupid at all. Ha ha.
Anyway, most of the friends I have are in their 30s and they are Baptists. It is hardly that the right-wing is only made up of old coots.
You're funny CTM! ;-) And definately not stupid! ;-)
You know, I'm a baby boomer, came from a white (back then) church, and played my part in the civil rights movement in the south. Up until now, I never knew I was stupid though. lol Although I do remember when we boomers said not to trust anyone over 30, and thought I knew it all....that there was no room for nuance or shades of grey.
I'm a Gen-Xer and proud of it! *gasp -- I'll be 39 next month sob*
Well-said, John. We always harp on how we Republicans must learn this (although those of us here have already learned it), but sometimes we forget to include the Democratic party in the same classroom.
"For those who plan with audacity and execute with vigor,
progress is the magnificent by product."
This is our chance to break the political strangle-hold of the religious right.
How? By fiat? If we do that, we are no different than them. As much as I despise the full nelson the religious right has the GOP in, I am conscious that forcing them out of power will only make them worse, with the definite possibility of an increase in extremism.
----And there's no sense crying over every mistake
You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.
I cannot believe people are flaming Rick Warren for his beliefs. The man is preaching what he read in the bible. And you do not have to agree with him, or even listen to him. But we cannot chastise this man for having his beliefs. This is America. His freedom of religion equals yours. Thats what makes this country great. Some people are allowed to be gay, and have equal rights. And other people are allowed to believe what the bible preaches about homosexuality. And on top of that, our future president is also given the right to choose whoever he wants to read the invocation, while he places his hand on the bible of his choice (Obama is using the Lincoln Bible. Great choice) and gets to choose whoever the heck he wants to be on his staff. He was elected based on the trust the country has in him to do the right thing! Now lets allow him to do it! WHATEVER IT IS!
This is getting as ridiculous as all the pictures of his ripped abs and pecs! All the far right are criticsizing every move he makes, now we have the extreme left as well. I feel bad for Obama. Why cant we just let the man lead the country? As a country, we voted him for the job. LET HIM DO IT!
I hope you're sitting down RF, because I'm standing and applauding you! Very well, and forcefully, said!
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere...when the far left and the far right can find things to criticize, I feel that Obama is doing the right thing for the country.
I generally agree with the sentiment in this post but I just want to respond to one part of it:
"But we cannot chastise this man for having his beliefs."
I can chastise anyone for any beliefs or behaviors that I want to, TYVM. Just as can you, for the same reasons that you stated in your post.
But as I said, I otherwise agree. I've read some truly stupid, closed-minded stuff from the left who resent this choice of Obama's -- in the newspaper! I don't even bother going to places such as The Huffington Post or Daily Kos.
Stuff from people who don't realize that Obama could only have been elected with a lot of support from voters who consider themselves to be otherwise moderate or conservative.
For Obama to turn a cold shoulder to us would be a serious mistake, IMO; he needs to keep us on board if he wants to lead this country, and not just lead the Democratic Party.
"For those who plan with audacity and execute with vigor,
progress is the magnificent by product."
ACTUALLY .............................
To chastise is to punish or condemn. And although you may very well chastise anyone you may choose, you just may have to answer to a higher power (My power is God) for your behavior. So, you may disagree with him, and you may say so, but I still feel you cannot "chastise" him.
LOL!!!! I'm just having fun with you Tin. You're a good person, and I enjoy you on this site!
And I agree with everything you said!
HAPPY NEW YEAR (be safe out there)
Me too.
WOW! I got an "atta boy" from my dear suzi!
And Ms Miller, thank you for the sentiment!
Tx Mom. You may be surprised to find out that you agree with more than you think. If you are on this site, you are a Republican. There are certain things that make you lean towards this party. And chances are, they are the same things that make me lean towards this party. Don't assume that because I did not back Obama in the election, that you and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I had (and have) my reasons for not supporting Obama in the election, but I also have my reasons for supporting him in his presidency!
I thank all of you for the nice words. And once again, thanks for the prayers during my time with my fathers health. I really appreciate it! Let's keep up the fight. Although I do not always agree with what my government does, I will not find fault in the minute details of everyday life like who says grace at the table when inaugaration stew is served! There is so much more to be concerned with! LIKE ................... OBAMAS ROCK HARD ABS!!!!!!! LOL! I couldn't resist. I thank God that you people on this site aren't gushing like school girls (and Keith Olbermann) over the latest topless pics of Obama! Aparently, this is news now! Forget Israel. Iraq. Bailouts and the economy. Lets talk about ABs!!!!!!
What is this country and its media coming to?
----
And there's no sense crying over every mistake
You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.
There's been a lot of interesting comments here. I should like to note that the use of Biblical text to justify public policy - any public policy, is theocratically themed. One can use Old Testament passages to justify slavery, genocide, polygamy and pedophilia as well as injunctions against gay marriage.
Since the announcement of the prayer address, Warren has had his scrubbers hard at work cleaning up the Saddleback website, especially when it comes to the exclusion of gays from his church and some of his bizzarro medieval beliefs... obviously I am not a fan of Rick Warren. His adherence to "young earth creationism", and his belief that God gave man dominion over dinosaurs
as well as his belief that we ought to teach creationism in public schools is too much for me. Not to mention his statement that Jews are going to hell and that women must be submissive to their husbands.
His bizarre statement that he wants "to have sex with every beautiful woman" he sees but restrains himself, therefore gay people should simply not have sex at all and therefore should be prohibited from marriage, while in the same breath equating the demand for gay marriage (and it's inherent mutual sexual exclusivity) to multiple partner sexual promiscuity is completely nonsensical.
Recently Rick Warren wrote; "Actually, I completely disagree with Jim Wallis's big government approach to poverty. The answer is not aid, but trade, not subsidies but freer markets, not wealth redistribution but wealth creation. Not the government but local congregations. Saddleback's P.E.A.C.E. plan is the exact opposite of outdated and ineffective liberal social government programs that have failed...."
Warren thus casts himself firmly in the Neoliberal Bushite camp. Does Rick Warren really believe the Church is going to rebuild New Orleans, end poverty, feed the hungry, provide healthcare to all? And what "failed" liberal social programs? Social security? Public education? Head Start? Workforce retraining? Medicare? Medicaid?
Truly, the only difference between theocratically inclined Warren and the likes of Dobson and Robertson is one of tone, and I do like Warren's tone, and yet....
He is to be honored with one of the highest 'rewards' a cleric can hope for - the honor of bestowing the inaugural prayer. Yes, it's just a bone tossed out to the religious right, actually rather meaningless in the long run, and I am fairly certain that Obama's team will require an inclusively non-sectarian prayer in the hopes that as many Americans as possible can add their Amens to it... still, it could have been someone else, someone less polarizing and more representative of our national civil religion traditions and a more mainstream theology. Perhaps it is politically savy, perhaps not.
Warren's not "all that", he's just a better marketer of religious right theology/ideology. I think the choice is unfortunate. I see Obama's intent, but the idea that you can bring Christian right extremists to the pluralistic table goes against everything they stand for and believe in. The hardest right sees only betrayal in Warren for not being enough of a hardcore spiritual warrior.