What the Choice of Rick Warren Says About Barack Obama
by BradfordCreationist to Give Invocation at Inauguration is a blog entry at Panda's Thumb. Matt Young notes that President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen Pastor and author Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation. Young identifies Warren as a creationist and quotes Warren as stating the following:
If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest[,] then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn’t reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that [sic] homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.
Young then goes on to add his own take on Obama's decision with respect to Warren:
I’ll grant that appointing a creationist to give the invocation is not exactly the same as appointing him science adviser, but if it represents the “spirit” of Mr. Obama’s administration, then I am not, shall we say, optimistic that Mr. Obama is truly the agent for change that he purports to be. His science appointments, I thought, have mostly been good ones, but I am utterly appalled by his inviting a homophobic creationist to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
I did not vote for Obama but will defend him when I think he is being wrongly accused. The choice of who it is that should deliver the inaugual invocation is not a matter impacting public policy. Yet Obama's choice has drawn some fire. Young and many PT commenters focused in on two reasons. Warren is both a creationist and one who believes that marriage should be defined as a legal contract between two individuals of the opposite sex. So why would that signify that he should not deliver an invocation? Clearly there is symbolism evident here and Young and others believe it is important enough to raise objections. But what is the symbolism? To Obama the symbolism is one of tolerance and inclusion of those with differing backgrounds and viewpoints. He is spot on in thinking so. He has designated someone who differs with much of his constituency to perform a non-policy act. It is an ideal way of demonstrating that Obama can be both tolerant and inclusive without sacrificing his own principles.
Let's now focus on the labels attached to Warren. First, he is a creationist. 
Although his inaugural duties are consistent with a creationist outlook and he would have no policy making functions, being a creationist would seemingly disqualify one from participation on any level of government. Does that embody tolerance, freedom, inclusion, fairness, democracy or any number of other ideals linked to liberalism in your view? Perhaps PTers could tell us which one of these values needs to be dispensed with to cope with the threat creationists pose. Or perhaps it is not a threat at all but mere muscle flexing. A we'll show you where Siberia is attitude.
But in fairness Young leveled two charges. So maybe both have to stick before even ceremonial appointments are verboten. The second description of Warren was that he is homophobic. Homophobic means a fear of homosexuality. The use of the term is juvenile. It's the flinging of potty words and accusations. But it plays well to the PT audiences. It says in effect that anyone who opposes redefining marriage and making consequent legal adjustments based on this, does so out of fear of homosexuals; a weird position for a group which prides itself on an empirical approach to science and political tolerance. How is one able to discern the motives of those with whom one has no personal interaction? How do you assign motives without documenting psychoanalytical evidence? Ah, but rationality has nothing to do with misrepresentation and demonization. It's a mindless mob mentality, not a rational analysis.
Warren was taken to task by commenters because he was said to be an ideologue. Yet what is it, if not ideology, which prompts people to bar others from even ceremonial acts within the government based on labels and disagreements? The issues (homosexual marriage and creationist views) do not mitigate against Warren's capacity to perform an invocation.
Warren's quote about homosexuality and genes alludes to a matter recently addressed at TT by reference to a Scientific American article discussed here. A paragraph from that article is quoted:
Pop EP argues that its speculations about our Pleistocene past have led to the discovery of many of the psychological adaptations that control our behavior. Because the approach has worked, it must be on to at least part of the truth about human evolutionary history. Of course, the soundness of this argument turns on the strength of the evidence for Pop EP’s alleged discoveries. That evidence usually consists of standard psychological pencil-and-paper data (such as responses to forced-choice questionnaires), but it sometimes also includes a limited array of behavioral data. As I argue at length in Adapting Minds, however, the evidence is typically inconclusive at best. Pop EP’s favored evolutionary hypotheses are, as philosopher Robert C. Richardson of the University of Cincinnati recently quipped, “speculation disguised as results.” The appearance that the evidence is compelling is created less by the data themselves than by the failure to consider and adequately test viable alternative explanations. Consider a single illustration of this point.
Linking behavioral traits to evolutionary developments in genetics is routine. So when Warren infers that an evolutionary process would be expected to weed out a genetically based attraction to the same sex he is making a claim that is consistent with the logic of an evolutionary process. Of course there are many physical and behavioral traits which exist even in the absence of selective value. Slightly deleterious mutations can persist within a genome and accumulate. Controversial? Hardly. So why the strong reaction to Warren's statement? For one, he is biologically off the mark in expecting an eradication through natural selection. Secondly, his marriage position clearly is very unPC among the PT crowd and poisons the well with respect to anything else he says. Yet the core of Warren's idea is sound. If homosexuality is rooted in genetics then one would expect natural selection to be a sifting force which limits the proliferation of the behavioral trait. Not worth demonizing him for this.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
There is indeed a lot of moaning and groaning on the left about Obama's choice of Warren for the invocation, mostly for the dissonance and apparent thumbing of the nose to his core of progressive supporters. But had he chosen a liberal minister for the same ceremonial job, the bitching on the right would have been deafening. Of course, I don't see why bitching from the right is in any way worse than alienating your own supporters. I think it was a mistake for which Obama will lose a good deal of support.
As for the religious right's opposition to equality under the law, there are issues to consider. First, the issue of how utterly ridiculous it is for traditional couples to insist that the pair-bonding commitments of homosexuals somehow threaten their own marriages and family. If that is indeed so, their marriage is in more trouble than denying rights to others could ever fix. They should spend their energy on their own home issues and stop trying to blame other people for their own failings.
Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it obviously presents itself in a certain percentage of the population in every generation regardless of the fact that homosexual unions are childless. In ages past these offspring were either forced into standard marriages (getting their real passions sated elsewhere), or steered into monastic or priestly (or shamanistic) roles where celibacy was the norm. Lots of marriages are childless and no one has seriously suggested that the state forbid or annul those because the lovers aren't 'doing their duty' to provide the state with future cannon fodder and/or brood mares. Now that women control their own fertility this argument is moot – as it should be.
The planet's vastly overcrowded – perhaps an increase incidence of homosexual offspring (if there is such increase) is like a 'Lemming Response'. The state has no power or right to determine who any individual citizen falls in love with, and to deny rights to an entire class of citizens based on rules written for a Middle Eastern tribal priesthood 3500 years ago is bizarre (as well as unconstitutional). Denying gays the rights inherent to the status of marriage or forcing them to obtain more expensive legal status than heterosexuals can get for the price of a license (or just gain by 'common law') is also unconstitutional.
So it seems to me that regardless of how anyone feels about other people's choice of lover, the 'right' thing to do legally is to either force heterosexuals to get lawyers and pay for the legal contract of domestic partnership, or grant homosexuals the right to get a cheap marriage license that automatically covers those details. Equality under the law, which the SCOTUS will inevitably have to establish specifically for this issue. Prop 8 in California has now grown into a movement to annul previously sanctioned marriages and deny recognition to marriages performed in other states – these are clear violations of Amendment 14 to the US Constitution. The injured parties are lining up, this travesty will soon fall regardless of how Warren and his ilk feel about it.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
We care about science, creationism is an anti-science movement. You care about morals, if the inaugural speaker was a hardcode Nilhist or a member of Manbla or Peter Singer would that choice upset you? If you truly care about morals I would hope those choices would bother you.
I think homophobic is simply the most polite assumption to make. He seems to clearly feel that giving homosexuals equal rights will lead to some harm or damage. To me that sounds like he fears the results of homosexual equality. Sure there are other options, he might posses great hatred towards gay people or just generally be a bigot. I think it’s more polite to assume he's fearful than hateful. At least a fearful person can fight against something with clean conscious. I'm sorry if trying to be polite isn't "scientific" enough for us in your view.
Well, there are all those gay mega-church pastors who have wives and children because they can't come to terms with their homosexuality. Perhaps it’s these repressed individuals who persist the trait.
To truly make me happy he would have needed to choose a secular speaker. But still, I'm sure he could have found some conservative religious figure who isn't a creationist. They can't all be that deluded.
Hear hear! You might have whacky EAM views, but at least you have reasonable political views.
That was a very well spoken reply and I echo your sentiment.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Joy:
Wow. He has yet to assume office and he is thumbing his nose based on a choice for a ceremonial speech lasting all of several minutes? Obama got many votes from centrists who still form the majority of the American electorate. If the core left thinks they own Obama his presidency is in for rough sledding.
Not from me nor I think most centrists and conservatives. I would have expected a liberal and as I repeatedly emphasized the position is not a policy making one. I'm in favor of allowing Obama at least a reasonable opportunity to fashion problem solving programs. I would hope the left of center supporters allow him the same.
Good Lord. If Obama were to lose a good deal of support over an incident like this then the nation is in for an acrimonious four years. Fortunately most Americans are focused on bread and butter issues and will evaluate Obama based on results. That's how it should be.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Bradford: Let's now focus on the labels attached to Warren. First, he is a creationist.
Creationists are not anti-science. Singer would be fine even though we usually disagree. A child rapist is not OK.
It's a dumb mindless cliche.
They have all our constitutional rights. Same sex marraige is not a constitutional mandate.
More likely, his critics are hate-filled and bigoted.
You're acting like a phoney in labeling him and then claiming to be polite.
Just being polite again with the deluded comment? A creationist attributes life to God as the causal source. They come in all shapes and varieties. What is truly delusional are leftists who do nothing but spew hate speech and fling insults and then think of themselves as tolerant.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Bradford:
A lot depends, of course, on how Warren plans to use the pulpit. Apparently Obama made the choice based on someone in the transition team giving him the erroneous impression that Warren is a 'centrist' rather than a wannabe theocratic mind-tyrant who stands against the US Constitution.
Since the heated response from the progressive contingent, Obama has reaffirmed his own stand for the Constitution (he is, after all, a professor of Constitutional Law) and Warren has hemmed and hawed enough about his anti-gay stance to raise a bit of a smokescreen. Too late to back out now without admitting the mistake, but if Warren uses the opportunity to denounce equal rights for an entire class of hard working, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, Obama will have to renounce and apologize. To everyone, not just the progressives. If Warren keeps it simple and bland enough to use as baby food (sans melamine), he'll fade safely into the background once the ritual is over and the partying starts.
We're all in favor of trying to solve problems, and he's got the next four years to make that attempt (so long as he doesn't blatantly violate the terms, and judging by how often the incumbent has done that very thing, violations aren't impeachable these days anyway). Obviously, the incumbent doesn't need everyone's support – Bush has under 20%, after all. Obama can lose the progressives and not miss them at all except when it comes time to finance and field a ground game in his next campaign.
For those who demand equality under the law and the civil charter of this nation's very existence, their civil rights ARE a "bread and butter" issue. No, not as important or as immediate as universal health care, reinvestment in manufacturing capability (production of real value) and cleaning out the Randroids on Wall Street and the banking sector, but real and important nonetheless. But since just 10% of the ammonia pipeline's diminished production in the breadbasket was used on the fields for the fall applications, we're entirely likely to be starving by this time next year. Once we begin starving, all bets are off. We might end up with an entirely different type of civilization when it's over.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I see, its ok for you to assume his critics are hateful but its wrong for his critics to assume he's fearful without first running some intense scientific study. Basically you're trying to score points based on the fact that "your side" of the debate is not bound to logic and reason?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
More likely, his critics are hate-filled and bigoted.
Let's apply logic and reason in place of your emotionally satisfying, but rational non-starter, name calling and scoffing. Homophobe is flung around by you and others because it is the in word insult. Are you a creationphobe or a conservaphobe? Are you a NAMBLA phobe too? Assuming another's emotion in place of rational exchanges is not a good idea.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The reaction to the selection of Warren to give the invocation has been interesting to me as a mostly conservative person. Conservatives are misunderstood greatly by many liberals. We need more dialogue not less. The pundits on both sides just ruin the communication. Good people can just disagree about issues. When Joy says stuff like this below, I know she does not understand me. I do love her strong opinions though and enjoy that she is very much her own person.
“As for the religious right's opposition to equality under the law, there are issues to consider. First, the issue of how utterly ridiculous it is for traditional couples to insist that the pair-bonding commitments of homosexuals somehow threaten their own marriages and family. If that is indeed so, their marriage is in more trouble than denying rights to others could ever fix. They should spend their energy on their own home issues and stop trying to blame other people for their own failings.”
I value marriage and what it has meant throughout history. I do not want to change the meaning of that word. I am in favor of all citizens having “equality under the law” as Joy puts it. I think civil unions are the way to go, but leave the word marriage to mean what it always has, a union between persons of the opposite sex. I see it as a biological restriction not a rights issue at all.
The discussion should be about how society treats the institution of marriage (and/or civil unions) and the supportive laws put in place around it. I do not want to weaken the support of this institution by equating it with any relationship between two people. I know that my own marriage will not fall apart if homosexual couples are allowed to marry, and it is ridiculous to imply that conservatives are threatened that way.
I also happen to value loving (platonic) relationships between two elderly sisters or brothers or an aunt and two nephews that she might be the guardian of. Why should the sexual relationship between two loving homosexuals be given rights not allowed between those other relationships? Where does it stop? If eventually all relationships between persons who live together are given the same rights in the name of equality then what is the point in sanctioning any relationships legally anymore? These are some of the issues that matter to me. I cannot speak for Rick Warren.
People at the extremes see things in black and white, but people in the middle see many shades of gray. When someone is labeled a creationist or homophobic it is to discredit a position that may have a variety of issues attached to it. Obviously one size thought does not fit all. As a society we need to value all the voices that contribute and I think that is what Obama is trying to do. I wish him all the best.
Comment by interested bystander — December 27, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Instead of my name calling and scoffing or instead of your name calling and scoffing? At least I'm not denying my scoffing.
You act like its wrong to admit there are things to be fearful of. I guess "phobe" implies a strong irrational fear, but there are many rational fears and we don't have another word to use for that. So it seems fair to call me a creationphobe, I genuinely fear the damage they might cause to scientific education in our nation's schools if left unchecked. This in turn could somewhat limit our entire nations quality of life. In a completely worst-case (but highly unlikely) scenario it could leave us ill-equipped to deal with some future crisis like plagues or climate change. The end result of rampant fundamentalism is impoverished primitive societies like are found throughout the Middle East. I don't spend my days quaking in mortal dread over this minor fear. In fact I tend to think science can't help but be the eventual winner since science is a more successful pursuit of truth. But still, if I did not fear this potential negative outcome then I would have no reason to spend so much time scoffing at fundies.
As to conservaphobe, despite being concerned for issues like social equality I generally support conservative economic ideas. I have some minor amount of fear over many of the social conservative movements simply because they mirror so many past instances of bigotry and oppression which have lead to instability and wars in the past. So in many ways I am conservative but in some ways I do fear some forms of conservatism.
As to Manbla, I hope we all agree there is good reason to fear what actions these freaks might take against innocent victims.
So is your complaint mearly that "phobe" is too strong a word for the fear Rick Warren has of homosexuality? Would it be more PC if we simply called him homofraid instead?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Let's apply logic and reason in place of your emotionally satisfying, but rational non-starter, name calling and scoffing.
OK. I admit to scoffing at scoffing.
My complaint is that you cannot read Warren's mind and are in no position to assert what his emotional make-up is like with respect to homosexuals. What you can identify are the reasons he presents for his beliefs which is ironically the very thing you ignore.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
interested bystander:
I live in NJ where civil unions have become formally sanctioned by law. This also addressed another stated concern of those lobbying for homosexual marriages namely conferring health and other benefits to a non-spousal partner. This also includes state income tax deductions and more. Homosexuals also have all the protections afforded by the state and national constitutions. So what is left? The word marriage being applied to already existing relationships. Marriage advocates either think this will afford them a respectability they believe is currently lacking or that it will change the views of society at large about homosexuality. Wrong on both counts. We are seeing the goal posts move away from practical concerns about partnership benefits and toward something less tangible.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
interested bystander:
Which meaning through history? Polygamy? Mass polygamy with concubines? Sexual slavery of pre-pubescent girls and boys? Polyandry? Open marriage? Serial monogamy? Marriage to a church or a god? Vestal prostitution? Jack/Robin copulations to fertilize the fields? The word has meant many different things throughout history, depending on who was doing the defining.
I think civil unions are the way to go too, for everyone entering into such arrangements. And it should cover all the inherent rights, plus be a cheap document fee as marriage licenses are now. Do away with those altogether.
As for the meaning and use of words, no one can prevent anyone from considering their commitment a 'marriage' and using that word to define their union. Words have no rights under the law. People do.
And biology only limits procreation to opposite sex couplings. Which don't need anybody's sanction in order to produce offspring – all that needs is the coupling at the proper biological time. Since same sex couplings have been providing satisfaction to participants as far back into history as we can see, biology obviously doesn't prevent that from happening. I think just about every conceivable prohibition on sexuality has been attempted at some point or another in history, none of them served to stop people from seeking sexual satisfaction or even falling in love with the 'wrong' person. Heck, even falling in love was prohibited at times, marriage being reserved completely for financial and/or political purposes. That didn't work very well either.
The only time that 'society' gets involved is when there is serious domestic abuse or the marriage dissolves and the distribution of property and children must be adjudicated. I've been married for 40 years, had two children and adopted 3 more with my spouse. No one official or unofficial has ever demanded to see my marriage license – not even the US Navy – in all that time. Not once. The IRS never complained about us filing joint taxes, the Navy didn't hesitate to give me a dependent ID and recognize me as legal surrogate, I've never been denied the right to visit my spouse in the hospital, or him me, or either of us our children and grandchildren. And even if we'd never officially married, 'common law' would work exactly the same in a dissolution and/or child support situation. So we never actually needed a license, did we? That no doubt explains why so many young people these days don't bother.
Any relationship between two people that THEY consider a committed marriage *IS* a marriage. And should be recognized as such for all legal purposes of community property, insurance status, visitation, child custody and survivorship rights. You can call it "domestic partnership," "common law" or "marriage" as you like. Your choice of what to call it should NOT interfere with the rights of anybody else, nor should anybody be charged more for the privileges (and/or headaches) entailed.
I personally know conservatives who DO believe this, and use this very argument to justify denying gays the right to marry their chosen life-partners. Good on you if you know better, but there are many out there who don't. It is those people who need to pay more attention to their own house and less attention to everybody else's.
That's downright dumb. Platonic relationships between siblings, parents and children, guardians and wards, etc. are not the same as committed life-partnerships in sexual union. Equating them is seriously insulting and I'd think you're smart enough to know that. Or are you saying that sibling incest and incest between parents/children or guardians/wards is perfectly acceptable to you, so long as they don't try to get married? Or maybe you just don't want gays to be able to call their relationship a 'marriage' so you can tell yourself it's just platonic instead of sexual? I don't get it.
Gays demand the right to marry their chosen partners enjoy all the rights you have in your marriage. Gays have had that right in three states, still have it in two. Those marriages must be recognized for all legal purposes in all other states or a violation of the Fourteenth ensues and is actionable. Even if it's in their state constitution, it'll be struck down on that objection. All you guys have to do is accept that. SCOTUS will have to take a case soon. I doubt there's any real confusion about where they'll draw the line.
Perhaps the best thing is to get the state out of the business of sanctioning domestic arrangements altogether, let the courts handle dissolution in the regular way, as they do every day right now for the multiple millions of serial monogamists out there who can't manage to stay married for any appreciable amount of time (conservative Christians factoring high in that demographic). Let the household reality determine all other issues for purposes of insurance, assets, debts, deductions, etc. on the civic level.
Churches can do or not do the 'sanctioning'. And their congregations can decide what they'll sanction. Lots of citizens don't go to church, don't have their babies baptized, don't march down the aisle for confirmation or marriage, and don't get buried by a churchman either. Those people are all citizens with the range of civil rights accorded to citizens by the government, which is not a church. Maybe it's time we made that official.
So do I.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I would be fine with states only offering Civil Unions to all people including heterosexual couples, as Joy suggests above. I'm not fine with double standards. If you truly want to return to what marriage used to mean, marriage was once a property arrangement meant to increase social or political standing. So we go back to buying our wives in order to keep the traditional definition of marriage? Or should we follow Hebrew law and marry our brother's wives should our brothers die? It is our modern definition of two people falling in romantic love and choosing to marry which is abnormal from a historical perspective.
You must be in great physical shape from all the exercise you get dancing around the issues. Scoff.
You mean reasons like "because Leviticus says so"? Never mind that Leviticus equally condemns shrimp and contains the biblical rarity of having Jesus specifically contradict portions of it. I addressed the absurdity of the "maintain the traditional definition" argument above, though not as well as Joy did.
Equality. The dignity that comes with not being treated differently. If you already consider civil union and marriage to be equal then why do you think they should be denied the use of this word?
If people substituted a racial word like "Black" into these same marriage arguments then it would be obvious that this marriage debate is the same sort of bigotry that used to be applied to ethnic minorities. It would be obviously bigoted and immoral to claim that a mixed-race couples should only be allowed to form a civil union instead of getting married. So why is it any different when race is replaced with sexual orientation?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Bradford:
Good for 'Joisey! I await the day when such unions enjoy legal status in all states. It would allow people I know and love to get a paper they think they need, enjoy some rights and recognized status they currently do not enjoy. We could throw a wedding, of course, but that's just a party. A chance to vow formally to each other and one's friends and relatives to do all the things most people these days don't keep regardless of pieces of paper or parties. It would have allowed the uncle of another person I know and love to have ordered his affairs in just the way he intended for his partner and the nephew they raised without the considerable expense of lawyers to make it as ironclad as is simply assumed if there's a marriage license (or 'common law' claim) involved. Multiple thousands of dollars, btw, and his partner wasn't allowed to visit him when he was dying of AIDS. That's just sick.
My marriage license cost us $3 way back then, we panhandled that much in less than an hour at Mother's Rock Shop in OKC (we eloped because the parental units disapproved, also an illegal act in many historical cultures)…
You are right, of course. The word doesn't change anyone's attitude, and gays shouldn't really expect that. Such sociological changes often take generations. But if it makes them feel psychologically better about themselves and less apt to take serious offense (or be attacked by others), where's the harm? There are still plenty of people in my state who consider it "Unnatural" for a white to marry a black (and it was illegal on the books until just a few years ago), some of them consider it a killing offense and aren't afraid to say so out loud, in public.
A killing offense against what, you ask? Can't be nature, since people of different ethnicities can fall in love and have babies as easily as anybody else. Offense against a hater's hatred, that's what. The hater can't be cured, but society can make HIM the pariah instead of the lovers, and has done so in a relatively short amount of time. That's a step toward the change that is inevitable, and 'good' on the relative scale of human nature's tendencies toward evil.
Really, I have no problem thinking about gay couples I've known as "married." I address the Christmas cards to Jim and Bill or Gail and Candice instead of Jim and Gail or Candice and Bill. Some of them even tried the whole hetero thing, have produced their fair share of children. Some states are trying hard to prevent gay parents from maintaining custody of their own children, and forbidding adoption by the gay partner. That's just… awful. There is no earthly guarantee I'll be married this time next year, and that was true from the moment I married. He could die, he could suddenly amass a fortune I could get half of if I divorced him, he could fall in love with some sweet young thang and leave me flat… who knows? Life is a challenge in the best of times, there's really no sense in making it harder than it has to be. Especially in the worst of times.
Equal rights in the domestic arena are what's coming, welcome or not to any individual. Half a century hence it'll be a total no-brainer, people will marvel that anyone spent their lives trying to prevent it. Rick Warren represents that whole mindset, and hasn't been shy of saying so out loud, in public. His participation in the inauguration is seen by many of his supporters as a slap in the face of their efforts to gain those civil rights they believe strongly they deserve by being citizens in good standing. They feel that way because that's the way they feel. There really isn't any point in arguing with them about that. Obama promised "Change We Need." They see this issue as one of those necessary changes. I think that's okay, or at least unavoidable if Obama chooses a vocal anti-gay for this invocation. Which he did.
Warren-Endorsed Nigerian Archbishop Backed Anti-Gay Laws Worse Than Third Reich's
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
This is the expected shallow response. There are reasons why a marriage between one man and one woman is preferred to polygamy ( I know David and Soloman did it and with unhappy results) incest and homosexuality. Not the least of the reasons is the effect on children which is biologically harmful in the one instance (incest), psychologically harmful in another (polygamy) and not ideal in the third (a homosexual arrangement). Contrary to popular memes there are significant differences between the sexes that transcend physical differences. Parents are role models. Children justify the state's involvement in the relationship as well. As far as living arrangements outside marriage are concerned, that is beyond the legal scope of state authority. If same sex lobbyists are honest they will own up to the fact that the equality issue, when civil unions are recognized as is the case in NJ, comes down to something intangible. In NJ it no longer has any other effects.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
From the link supplied by Joy:
Describe it as draconian or some other such term but comparing this to the Third Reich is rhetorical overkill. Hitler's Nazis did not need statutory authority to send homosexuals to concentration camps which were the destiny of more than 6 million Jews. Also included in the round-ups were Slavs, Gypsies, political opponents, homosexuals, the infirmed and handicapped and Christians who stood against Hitler. The Third Reich generally fails as a point of comparison to most things as it was so far over the top.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I agree. Not to mention that it's Godwin in action. But the National Socialists had to start somewhere. That somewhere wasn't 5 years in prison for eating together in public.
Just offering an overview of what I'm seeing from supporters on the left. You think it's very far over the top, and I've pointed out that for the people for whom civil rights for gays is a super-serious issue, it's a regular Big Deal. Obama didn't have to do that, as you've said. I'm still trying to figure out what he thinks he's gained by doing it anyway.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
So show me where Rick Warren has discussed the terrible psychological impact of polygamy or the horrid "non-optimal" breeding potential of homosexuality? And defend the position that optimal breeding is the goal of marriage. Should women after menopause be allowed to marry? Should infertile men be prohibited from marriage? Should married couples be allowed to stay married if they choose not to have children?
Also, if its all about popping out more children then wouldn't it be a bonus if married men had mistresses on the side, so long as their many families don't know about each other to avoid this psychological harm you speak of?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I did not vote for Obama but recognize the historical significance of his election. I dont think I was ever prouder of America than the day he won the election.
Obama has a lot to gain from it. Obama ran on a platform of inclusivity and a promise to heal the divisiveness amongst us, why would he not reach out to the right. Personally I have found his actions since his election to be very reassuring and that I may not have taken the full measure of the man.
Also remember Nixon opened up China. Obama knows his base and also knows the tremendous amount of goodwill he currently enjoys. I have no doubt he will be left leaning but because of his popularity he wil be able to do things that may alienate his base but be more than compensated by those outside his base…people like me.
BTW if my memory serves me correctly Obama does not favor the redefinition of marriage. If I am correct about this what principle is he violating when he and Warren are in agreement?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 27, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Vivid:
Me too. I became politically aware when Kennedy was assassinated. I came of political age when his brother Bobby and MLK were assassinated. For decades I never voted, didn't pay attention, didn't bother to get involved. I was "taught" by my nation that if there's a real threat of Change, violence can make it go away.
Then someone I respect a lot told me I didn't have reason to complain if I never bothered to vote. And it hit me like a brick – he was absolutely right. I've voted every chance I get ever since, even when I knew there was no point. Bitching rights is point enough.
I have great hope for the next four years, which is a whole lot more than the last eight have offered us. But I understand the feeling on the left, because there are citizens who have waited years for their civil rights. Civil rights that never should have been "on hold" in the first place. Perhaps from this there will arise an opposition party that can actually get people elected. That would be okay too.
What Obama risks is his financial and activist 'base', those who maxed out and raised more, those who got out day after day to knock on doors, those who believed his promise of change. Sure, Obama may not have meant it when it comes to gays. But that is not what got gays involved or made them donate more money than they easily had to give. They feel betrayed, I can understand that. Perhaps Obama has every intention of making the inequalities go away via law or judicial appointments, Warren's just a hat tip to the religious right for political gain. But it's not just gays (a mere ~10% of the population) who consider this issue important. A good many secular and religious organizations are in support. Pretty soon you're talking some significant percentages.
Who can "redefine" marriage? As I mentioned, a marriage is what is made by two people in love, living and working together to make it. No one else can do it for them, and a party (wedding) is just a party. Anyone can throw a party. The Law does not determine the definition or usage of words. And words have no rights under the law. I think people will just have to get used to the idea that gays can be married just like everybody else.
It's a commitment. It 'means' certain things, not all (or even the predominant amount) involving incidental children. And on that, let me just say there's no such thing as an "illegitimate" child. We have DNA testing nowdays. Fathers can help support the children they father regardless of who has or doesn't have a damned piece of paper from the County Clerk.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Vivid:
It's way too early to tell what his presidency will be like but one of my gauges of intention is whether or not one acts in accordance with his professed beliefs. Obama has said on numerous occassions that he intends to be inclusive. Words in political contexts allow for too much wiggle room but perhaps he really means what he is saying- rare for a politician. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Joy:
I try to keep tabs on the thinking of the different factions in the USA. Yes, there are fears among gays, most of which I think are unfounded. Their biggest concerns are the individuals with which they relate to on a daily basis. People can be cruel but I don't suspect the institutionalization of gay bashing is in the cards.
Honestly, Joy I'm surprised you ask what Obama has gained when you look at this thread and see two non-Obama voters applauding an act on his part which does nothing to either compromise Obama's policies or advance my conservative views. He has given a ceremonial function to an influential Christian author and my political sensors are screaming "very smart political move." Not wanting to be cynical though I hope that his motives are sincere. I have reason to suspect they are because Obama's past statements align well with his action. If nothing else though, this incident illustrates why it is difficult for anyone to remain popular once assuming the responsibilities of governing. Some group is always going to be angry with you.
Comment by Bradford — December 27, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I was trying to be a bit PC. I am under the impression that Obama is not for same sex marriage.
To who? It was not the activist base you speak of that elected him. USA at best is moderate left, it was the moderates that put him into office. The far left are wacko as is the far right.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — December 27, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
December 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Vivid:
Then I must suppose Obama is unconcerned that his loss of support might overshadow his gains. And the pundits are talking center-right, not moderate left. But what do they know? I'm sure the ~20% of the electorate that self-identifies as religious fundamentalist "values voters" will now be willing to max out on donations and play the ground game for consolidation of the party's majority in Congress and a safe 60 in the Senate in 2010.
There's nothing "wacko" about equality under the law in the United States of America. It's supposed to come with the birthright.
Comment by Joy — December 27, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
January 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Joy says:
He has the job for 4 years. If he proposes programs the left likes, they will likely support them. If he proposes programs the left dislikes, they will likely oppose them. Rick Warren's selection doesn't appear to change that calculation by much if at all.
I think you miss the point of the complaint. Either the state can prefer certain social constructs, or they can't. If you are correct that such a preference is unconstitutional (and I disagree with that view), it certainly does threaten the current institution. That's not to say individuals will run out and get divorced because of SS marriage.
They have equal rights under the law. They just don't like some of the laws. There isn't a 14th Amendment right to have laws struck down because one doesn't like them.
There is no doubt in my mind where they should draw the line, but that is quite different from where they will draw the line.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
January 1st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
It's not a matter of "can" but "can be forced to". So, now that we have all 50 states declaring that Moms can drop the little one at the Fire Station, and wash her hands of Junior or Princess, when will we, keeping in mind the 14th Amendment, allow Dad to do the same? Funny how so few of the SS marriage advocates seem to think about such issues.
Turns out the "damned piece of paper" actually represented something more than just a piece of pulp. If you don't grasp that, you won't really be able to understand why marriage has been defined the way it has been, and why asserting imagined "rights" is counter-productive.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
January 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
RogerRabbitt:
The 14th Amendment applies to couples legally married in, say, Massachusetts, who move to, say, California. California cannot remove or refuse to recognize the legality of that marriage and rights of the parties that come with. If there are any, which I agree is pretty much limited to survivorship status. IOW, if one party dies the state cannot refuse to consider the inheritance rights of the spouse AS spouse in all the normal inheritance rights of the spouse in a traditional marriage.
Yeah. It represented "ownership" of the live-in sex slave, chief cook, laundress, maid and bottle washer (who couldn't even vote for most of this country's existence). It represented relatively reliable paternity so he could feel good about leaving his wealth and titles to them after he died, etc. It did NOT represent anything necessary for procreation, it did NOT actually ensure fidelity on the part of either party, and did NOT count as a financial instrument unless divorce occurred.
Comment by Joy — January 1, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
January 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Never heard that one about the 14th. Maybe you can tell me what section of the 14th relates to that. Most SS marriage advocates hang their hat on this part of the Constitution:
There are exceptions to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, and as you can see, Congress has a role in defining how it shall work. See "Defense of Marriage Act".
As to your other point, I'll respond to that when I have a little more time.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
January 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
And Happy Hopping John to one and all!!!!!
As I sit here eating a bowl of hopping John (started at 11 a.m.) and cornbread, I'm hoping everyone here is enjoying their black-eyed peas, greens and cornbread too, so we'll all have a prosperous New Year.
The tradition dates back to the Civil War. Black-eyed peas, also known as "cow peas" were planted as animal fodder, and later as staple crop for slaves in the south. When Sherman made his notorious march to the sea slashing and burning and looting crops all the way, his troops left the pea fields intact, believing the crop worthless. Thus the humble black-eyed pea became the staple food of necessity for surviving confederates.
Hopping John is a one-pot dish of b-e peas (preferably from dry), rice and collard greens. The peas represent coins, the greens represent paper money, and the cornbread that comes with represents gold. To ensure prosperity ever day in the new year, one must consume 365 peas. Dunk that golden cornbread in the greens pot likker or crumble into the hopping John, and a prosperous New Year will be had by all!
Comment by Joy — January 1, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 am
The DOMA is unconstitutional on its face, and will inevitably be stricken by the SCOTUS if Obama doesn't manage to make good on his campaign platform plank to repeal it in full. The constitutional issues that can be brought through the federal courts by any gay couple whose legal marriage in any state suffers 'harm' in another state or federal jurisdiction that will not recognize their rights, have to do with the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Now, you might get two thirds of the states to ratify a new amendment, but we've got far bigger problems to deal with in the next few years than who is falling in love with whom. I'm sure there will be an attempt. Maybe you'll have better luck with institutionalizing a lower legal status for an entire class of citizens than supporters of equal rights for the already lower legal status class known as female managed. Heck, if it works, they might go for the gold and go back to miscegenation laws too, effectively reversing Loving.
Ultimately, I expect gays will have to settle for civil union/domestic partnership papers, which should cost no more than marriage licenses and come with the same property and dependency rights. Some states may switch altogether to such paper for all unions, since if it's such a huge religious deal, a 1st Amendment issue may be brought.
Churches can still call it whatever they like, restrict it to their wishes. The people getting hitched can call it whatever they like too. Because words are just words. Citizens have rights, words do not.
Comment by Joy — January 2, 2009 @ 2:05 am
January 4th, 2009 at 9:02 am
That's one way to look at it. I think that view misses a lot about the way things worked and why marriage was important. Most folks who I've encountered who think that way also think "the best thing is to get the state out of the business of sanctioning domestic arrangements altogether". The latter conclusion is not surprising given their view of the past, but IMHO, that view is incomplete, and therefore defective.
Marriage is clearly not required to make babies, but it played a pretty useful role in raising them to be productive members in a stable society. One can look at some of the inner city communities and see what abandonment of an obligation to marriage has done for the children there, and the greater communities. The latter point when financial consequences are encountered could be directed at most contractual situations, but the obligations and penalties that occur with breach or divorce are there only because of the prior agreement or marriage.
And interpreting "rights" as you seem to use the word, those most resistent will generally be female, because there is a certain attraction to all the modern "rights", but hanging on to men's obligations to them from another era. My objection to that isn't some 14th Amendment claim, but a more practical issue of it not working that well. It isn't an issue for the Courts to deal with, but the society throught their legislative branches. We have to decide what the principles are that drive our family law structure. Starting out with a bunch of groups claiming rights before we've decided what the responsibilities are first is not a productive approach, IMHO.
That attitude is a good part of our problems today. I don't think people who disagree with me are "slapping me in the face", and I'm aware of no right of citizenship that guarantees me the right to not have other citizens disagree with me. There is no lower class of citizenship involved merely because one's opinions and desires are in the minority.
My point is that dealing with really difficult problems is made immensely more difficult without a commitment to what due process should be. The desire to have a small group of lawyers with govt jobs (i.e. the USSC) decide for society issues that they have no business deciding is gonna subvert the system of govt that has largely served us well for a couple of centuries. There is little appreciation today for the separation of powers that the founding fathers thought so important. In good times, it isn't critical. In bad times it is essential, but almost impossible to re-implement if it has been lost.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 4, 2009 @ 9:02 am
January 4th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
RogerRabbit:
The state need do nothing but log the contract for all legal purposes. The fact that there ARE legal purposes means the state does have an interest in logging the contract. Now, most of the purposes don't apply unless the contract is nullified or one of the partners dies, since the IRS doesn't require copies of marriage licenses to file joint tax returns, the military doesn't require copies of marriage licenses to grant dependent status and privileges, and the courts don't monitor people's bedrooms or the obituary column to decide who can have sex or who cries when their loved one dies.
Beneficiary and survivorship status automatically accrues to married couples, in states where these are not covered by domestic partnership the parties must obtain expensive, lawyer-drawn contractual agreements. I think that should change, because it's an undo burden on the parties. Gays do fall in love, form partnerships, hold property together, share assets, etc., etc., etc. The state doesn't have to approve, and neither do the next door neighbors or the boss at work or the mayor of the next town over. THAT is none of their business.
So… single parents (including divorced, widowed or never married) can't raise children to be productive members in a stable society? How about the children of Muslims or Mormons with multiple wives? Are the community-raised children of certain tribal and early Greek societies incapable of being productive? Are children raised in orphanages doomed to be non-productive? How about rich kids with two parents that are raised by illegal alien nannies who don't speak English, or by strict headmasters at boarding or military school?
Um… nope. Child support doesn't require marriage, and common law doesn't either. The legal obligations apply anyway, because not everybody who breeds is married, and not everybody who is married breeds. This is a non-issue, and none of it justifies denying equal rights.
Well, it would be much easier if every family were the same. But that is not so, and never has been so. Perhaps married people would be willing to give up their rights so that all domestic partnerships can be considered equal, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath on that. Besides, gay couples won't be producing children together so that's not an issue either. If they have children from prior marriages, they have the same responsibilities as parents as anyone else. Not an issue. If they adopt children together, they also have the same parental responsibilities under the law as any other parents. Non-issue. I don't see any reason to deny legal status on any of these non-issues.
The fact that some people are irresponsible parents, lousy housekeepers, horrible cooks or criminals in their day-job doesn't affect the status of their domestic arrangements or parenthood until and unless the state steps in with cause. I've seen the state remove parental rights from people, but I've never seen the state remove marriage status on its own except when the crime of bigamy is found out. The state grants divorce upon petition, the state recognizes partnerships – even among multi-divorced individuals. The state does not decide who must not be partnered (aside from mixed race in the past and gays today) or who must remain married for life. And regardless of what the state does or does not sanction, people will set up their personal lives and households as they wish anyway. Some rights (including the right to 'sins' like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, pride, etc.) are reserved to the people, mostly because people do what they want regardless of what the state says about it. I'm in no hurry to release violent criminals to make room for fat, lazy adulterers, but I'm sure someone out there thinks we should. Good luck with that, and the taxes that go with incarcerating more than half the population.
Yeah, I know. That's precisely how we ended up with 8 long years of Bush-Cheney and the disenfranchisement of a whole state's voters, decimation of the Constitution, major looting frenzy and not one but two wars of aggression we never could afford. I'm hoping the election of an actual Constitutional Scholar (instead of the usual idiots and B-movie actors) will overcome some of that "almost impossible" stuff, but I'm not holding my breath.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 6:00 pm