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?
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?
Posts
