Sweet irony

Ben Shapiro probably couldn’t have shown poorer timing with his recent post at CNSNews.com. With this epistle, Shapiro hand-picks several real news stories that descrribe deplorable events or conditions people elsewhere in the world face: A teenage Iranian girl who faces probable gang rape before she is executed, North Korean citizens starving at the draconian hands of their government, for example. And then with the commonest of a priori reasoning, concludes that these news events are evidence of President Obama’s declining influence throughout the world.

Meanwhile, a new Pew Global Attitudes Project was released that shows opinion of the U.S. overseas has improved. In fact, the report concludes that America’s status in the world has “markedly” improved under the Obama administration. This, mind you, would be an example of an a posteriori argument, one that is based on data.

Using Shapiro’s reasoning, one could easily find plenty of examples in the world press to reach the conclusion that the Bush administration’s neo-conservatism led to an increase in America’s stature throughout the world. But then there would be that pesky empirical data that suggests otherwise.

Take a look at Z

Rehashing what went wrong with Prop 8 last fall has been a popular topic for many writers and bloggers. It can get boring. But it is important to look at what others are saying and find out who is really cutting to the quick.

For example, there are those who like to blame others for Prop 8’s outcome. I must admit, I have been one to play the blame game, and by that I mean blaming someone other than the lesbigay community for the falter. Blame the religious blacks, or the Mormons, or whatever. But I must agree with what Michael Bronski wrote in the January issue of Z Magazine: It’s out fault. Period. (Sorry I don’t have a link to the article because the online version of Z Magazine is available to subscribers only; the archived article will be available later)

One issue Bronski highlighted was the frequent citing of Loving v. Virginia in the argument for same-sex marriage, a Supreme Court decision I have mentioned from time to time as well. First, this is what Bronski wrote:

“Another blunder was the constant recitation that the fight for same-sex marriage was exactly like the fight for interracial marriage that was won by Loving v. Virginia – an essentially false comparison that must have been difficult for many African Americans to hear and was not useful in trying to present the question of same-sex marriage (a moral issue for many people) in a civil rights context.”

This is a good point to keep in mind. While I have used the Loving case in previous blog posts, my context was different. Rather than trying to use Loving as a template for same-sex marriage, I was ferreting out text from the decision I saw as applicable. The issue of interracial marriage prohibitions and that of banning same-sex marriage are fundamentally different. They share certain arguments, but each circumstance if undoubtedly different.

The Loving case can play a role in our argument, but it cannot be a substitution for our argument. And Bronski is right to differentiate that interracial marriage is a civil rights issue, whereas same-sex marriage is a moral issue for many, regardless of how badly we might wish it to be purely about civil rights.

Something else that caught my attention in Bronski’s piece was his exposition regarding Barack Obama. Take a look at this quote.

“In the last days of the campaign the group Protect-Marriage.com distributed flyers with a photograph of Barack Obama quoting him as being against same-sex marriage, which was true. But Obama had also stated that he was against state-wide referendums to decide the issue and was specifically against Prop 8.”

Bronski, I believe, is trying to portray the use of Obama’s statement by Protect-Marriage.com as being disingenuous because they didn’t include the other facts. But I disagree. Think about it. On one hand, you say you are against same-sex marriage. Then, on the other hand, you say you are against an effort to ban such marriages? How can that make sense? And that raises another issue. Just how much of an ally is Barack Obama? How can you be against enacting laws that ban same-sex marriage and be against such marriages as well? It doesn’t wash, and Protect-Marriage.com was well within the sphere of legitimate use of his statement in its campaign.

Face it folks: until he says something different, Obama does not support equal marriage rights for us. He cannot oppose efforts to ban same-sex marriage and simultaneously be against same-sex marriage. It’s one or the other.

The problem is I believe Obama thinks that civil unions will be an acceptable answer. But he’s wrong. Civil unions weaken marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage does not weaken marriage. Obama really needs to ready David Myers’ book.

Repeal DOMA?

An article published this past week at CNSNews.com reveals that the Obama administration wants to repeal DOMA as well as extend all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Does that mean Obama supports same-sex marriage? Not even. It does mean, however, further expansion of civil unions, which I have repeatedly said are actually bad for marriage. But this is how moderate politicians seek to gain support from the lesbigay community.

The problem, of course, is that when civil unions become more formalized, they won’t just be for gays. Civil unions will have to be available for everyone, gay and straight. And if that’s the case, why would straights want to get married? So rather than protecting marriage, expansion of civil unions will work to erode the institution further until it becomes moot. And seeing how civil unions would have to be available to everyone, why bother creating them? We already have an institution that covers what a civil union covers.

It’s called marriage.

Warren's a poor choice, but it's not policy

If you haven’t read it, take a look at Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times. It’s an even-handed look at Obama’s decision to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to present the invocation at the inauguration.

“When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the ‘wide range of viewpoints’ in a ‘diverse and noisy and opinionated’ America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.”

Warren may be a bad choice, and a stinging one at that, but Rich is correct to point out that selecting Warren cannot be necessarily viewed as a proxy on how Obama will shape policy.

Reaction to Warren heats up

Obama’s selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation during the president-elect’s inauguration is worth following up with more incredulity. Really, Obama has completely got it wrong. Even Rachel Maddow on Friday revealed that Obama’s campaign realized the potential liability it faced if it went forward with allowing the Rev. Wright deliver an invocation at Obama’s campaign announcement back in 2007. And eventually, as we all know, Obama had to clearly distance himself from the Rev. Wright by denouncing him.

So what gives with Warren, the pastor at the California mega-Saddleback Church? This notion of sending a message of inclusiveness to evangelicals is simply going too far and is being done without serious thought to future consequences. Reading the church’s position on homosexuality clearly indicates that there’s been some biblical revision going on there. (editor's note Dec. 22: as reported on the Rachel Maddow show, the Saddleback Church has removed the item from its Web site regarding homosexuals are barred from membership) And reading an allegedly leaked transcript from the Obama team on the rationale for this decision does nothing more in my view than reveal that Obama has got some nuts giving him advice. The reaction continues even today with William Fisher at The Huffington Post asking the same question on nearly everyone’s mind: What was Obama thinking?

I must agree with Fisher when he writes, “To begin with, this strikes me as a strange move for a careful guy like Obama to make.” This choice appears to have been carelessly made, which is indeed out of character for someone like Obama. There is more to this reaction than the obvious statement from the Human Rights Campaign on the selection. And that is, when you listen to the Rev. Rick Warren speak on this matter, you clearly see that he really hasn’t thought through his objection to same-sex marriage; rather, he merely parrots old lines about sexual restraint and deviancy.

During Ann Curry’s interview with the Rev. Warren, we hear his speciousness come straight from his mouth when he talks about a human’s natural inclinations by relaying what his “gay friends” say to him. What “they say” is that they have an inclination to have sex with as many individuals as they like, to which Warren tells Curry that he, too, has a natural inclination to copulate with multiple “beautiful” women. But, he goes on, it is important for humans to restrain this impulse.

By the way, what Warren says about Buddhism endorsing only man/woman marriages is a lie. Buddhism endorses monogamy, but does not dictate that sex must occur within “marriage,” nor is there any explicit condemnation, other than in the rules for being a monk or nun, of homosexual acts. And the Buddha was clear about that: all sex, whether hetero or homo or even self-stimulation, was off limits to the Buddhist clergy.

But back to Curry’s interview. First, we have Warren talking about his gay friends. Who are these friends? I can’t imagine any gay man or woman being “friends” with Warren when knowing how he stands not just on same-sex marriage, but homosexuality in general.

Next, regarding the need for sexual restraint, I have no real argument there. It is a wiser path to show restraint. But how convenient for Warren that in the process of restraining his own sexual hunger, Warren can get married. He won’t allow that option to gays.

And apparently, Curry becomes a Warren apologist, trying to explain how this poor man is fearful he won’t even be able to speak his position from his own pulpit. Oh gosh, poor guy. Apparently Curry didn’t do even basic background research on Prop 8 to know that its failure would have no impact on what preachers could say within their congregations.

This is not just a clunker of a decision for Obama. It is a political blunder that shoves him in a corner that will require him spending too much time explaining his way out of.

Obama muffs it

I can understand that Barack Obama wants to reach out to as many groups and people as possible, to bridge widening gaps that often get in the way of progressive dialogue, but the president-elect really muffed it by naming the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation during the inauguration.

Warren is an out-spoken opponent of same-sex marriage and was a key player in endorsing Prop 8. It really makes you wonder how a candidate that had such wide support within the gay community would pick Warren to play such a prominent role during the inauguration. There are so many other gay-friendly ministers out there to choose from.

I realize that even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has portrayed Warren as an evangelical that even a liberal can love, but Kristof’s example of Warren’s compassion for AIDS issues cannot translate into acceptance of gays. That’s because it was the plight of African children stricken with AIDS that moved Warren to take this issue seriously; where was he when hundreds of thousands of gay men were dying?

But the real problem is Warren’s opposition to same-sex marriage. What’s the message that Obama is sending? That he is siding with the anti-marriage crowd? Looks that way to me.

Granted, I will give Obama his due by mentioning his response to the flak from the gay community that this created. Nonetheless, how can you be a "strong advocate" for the rights of one group when you give such a prominent pulpit to someone who stands in the way of those rights?