To add to all the discourse or…

I have been vascillating for a week now about writing this post, and if the truth be told I’m still not sure I want to put my comments out there. But here goes. I cal always choose to not publish it once written.

Controversy

I doubt the controversy is news to anyone at this point, but in brief: an envangelical pastor of a California megachurch was invited to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguation. The guy is, on the surface, your basic evangelical type: conservative on social issues including being opposed to gay marriage. His church is huge and was the site of discussions between himself and both presidential candidates before the elections. A number of liberals, and especially gay rights activists were up in arms about it, calling it a slap in the face. And for about a week now, this has been the talk of the blogosphere, as well as more mainstream media.

I personally haven’t been too moved since I heard the news. I wasnt thrilled, but as I thought about it, I thought it made good political sense.  Obama ran on creating change.  One perception of change might be that the conservative right was silenced.  But another perspective of change was that everyone deserved a place at the table, and that by looking for our common bonds, we could find a place from which to make progress on those things with which we disagree. What better place to begin that change than at the inauguration! But that said, I have been a little surprised and moderately annoyed that the subject hasn’t died down. So, in this post, I’d like to offer some views on that.

Before Clinton

I remember, in the weeks before Bill Clinton’s inauguration, how crazy things got as liberals wondered, giddy with opitimism, what this new “in” with power would mean for us. In fact, I think we forced Clinton to act too quickly on the gays in the military issue because we were demanding that he follow through on his campaign promises and we needed proof that times were changing.

I think part of the current drama owes itself to similar roots, but I’m sure many will argue with that. The specifics of the current drama make it too easy to feel justified at feeling so outraged. That said, I think it makes perfect sense for GLBT and other liberals. We have been overlooked, ignored and mistreated for so long that , 1) we don’t trust that good things will happen, and 2) we are so starved for equality that we have little, if any ability to be patient. We need it and we need it right now! So we forced the issue; Clinton wasn’t savvy enough or ready and didn’t get what he wanted; we accepted defeat and expected more later which we never got.
But today, there is another factor totally unlike Clinton’s time. Gay and lesbian couples have been getting married in several states, and in one, that right was just ripped away. I propose that if Obama had invited an evangelical from Georgia or Florida, the outrage would still be there but may be less intense.

How Many Losses?

Yes, I think the outrage has much to do with the recent and unexpected loss(es) more than with the reality of the current event itself. So, this conservative guy is gonna give a little prayer, so what? If this hadn’t come following these losses, it probably would have not been that big of a deal.

Another aspect is a payback mentality. “We” have been excluded for so long, that isn’t it our turn to exclude them for a change? That almost 1/2 of the country voted conservatively, and many of them are evangelicals… doesn’t it make sense that they have some representation in this ceremony? No, that would be a slap in the face! And I’m not sure liberals can be faulted for this desire eithger. This mentality of treating others as you have been… standard operating procedure by whomever rises to the place of power.

Over the Line

So, I’ve probably gone way over the line already. And this post is getting so long. There are three more points I want to make or three perspectives to consider:

Warren’s Viewpoints

First is the real issue of this guy’s viewpoints on homosexuality and gay people. It’s fairly deplorable. This for me, is the “text” of the drama. In a video clip shown on AC360, Warren equates gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. He has posted a clarification, but his words are what they are. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for 10 years, and there is no way in which it can be equated with incest, or those other things. There is plenty of reason to oppose having this guy involved for a president who ran on a platform of inclusivity. Though my solution wouldn’t be to keep him out, I’d have him offer the invocation with am out gay pastor like Troy Perry! Let him officiate along with someone who represents a very different perspective. I do not think this guy is homophobic.  I think he just doesn’t know the issue; doesn’t know enough gay people and is trapped in a rigid mindset that if examined doesn’t really seem rational.

What the Inauguration Means

Secondly, is the issue of the placement of this “text” within a ceremony/ritual that has both practical and symbolic meaning.  This for me is the “context” and what is most at the crux of the issue. From a practical perspective, this guy isn’t influencing policy, making laws  or otherwise harming justice.  He is simply giving a prayer.  He will have a few moments in the spot light and then will be done. And he by far is not the most evil or bigoted person who could be up there! Even the far right has criticisms of Warren!

Thirdly, is the symbolic meaning of the event itself. Here is where “what this means” for Obama, and “what this means” for others comes head to head.  Mike Madden, writing for Salon identifies this well.

 

I’m tired.  I have tried to write this over too many days, and truth be told, my opinions on this have been altered, or at the very least tested as I gave moved through writing this post.  What do you think?