Some Thoughts on the Inauguration

Timothy Kincaid

January 20th, 2009

What follows is not a structured commentary but rather some random thoughts on the inauguration.

Rick Warren: Warren’s performance continued to highlight what an unfortunate choice it was to select him for the inaugural invocation. His inflection and style lacked gravitas and humility and at times he seemed false and fawning. I watched the ceremonies in a local coffee shop and the crowd laughed when he verbally caressed the names of the President’s daughters.

The Presidential Inauguration Committee should have closely observed his praying style before announcing Warren. Had they done so, they might have made another selection. Or perhaps they did and wanted what they got.

Vice-Presidential Oath: I wonder why the Veep has an oath that is so much longer than the President’s. It seems that this oath is not stipulated by the Constitution and so they use the same one used by Senators.

Swearing In: Did Roberts not make clear to the President that he would be offering whole sentences rather than small word coupling? And then Roberts screwed up where “faithfully” was placed in the oath.

I would never accuse the man of intentional sabotage, but it does remind us that when President Obama was a Senator he voted against confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts.

Presidential Address: This was a good speech. It began with the usual platitudes and was full of generic rhetoric, but it also gave indications where this administration will view the world with different eyes than the last. Specific references to restoring “science to its rightful place”, and “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals” suggest direct policy changes while more general references hint at priorities that will change.

What saddened me was the continuation of excluding gay persons from any reference in the grand fabric of the nation. Of course some will dismiss this as an overreaching demand for such a small community, but Jews and Muslims – both much smaller populations in America – received specific reference. As much as I hope and wish for meaningful change for our community, I now fear that gay Americans are seen as a less insignificant part of Barack Obama’s America.

Benediction: Bless Rev. Lowery, but if anyone less prestigious had given that prayer they could not have carried it off. “The Red Man can get ahead, man”? Yikes!!

But I am particularly pleased that the reverend said:

And now, O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.

Considering the press surrounding Warren and his selection, it seemed to me that Lowery was speaking directly of the rights of gay Americans and the recognition of their relationships.

CNN: I found it of questionable taste that throughout the President’s speech they kept finding and focusing on an elderly black person. They stayed too long and the audience members’ shock of recognition of themselves on screen was distracting from the speech. And after a while it ceased seeming a confirmation of the fulfillment of a promise and began to take on a feeling of pandering and condescension. I hope that in the future media outlets can recall that this is the President of all Americans, not just old black Americans, and that we all should join together to provide our support for his leadership.

Finally, this was a joyous occasion. We should, as a nation, together hope and support and celebrate this new chapter in the history of our country. Because be we Democrats or Republicans, young or old, gay or straight, black or white or brown or chartreuse, we are Americans and Barack Obama is our President.

Benjamin

January 20th, 2009

“The Red Man can get ahead man” is completely appropriate. No “yikes” needed here. I have 2 Arapaho cousins, I’m part Osage and Cherokee, I am friends with a direct descendant of Chief Crazy Horse and I know their style of discourse and what Rev. Lowery said was completely in line with their humor. I loved his prayer and heard it as a complete, authentically humble and beautiful contrast to Rick Warren’s pompous prayer.

Benjamin

January 20th, 2009

BTW Rick Warren enjoys being heard and lauded with applause.

Ryan

January 20th, 2009

Barack Obama included gays in both his DNC nomination speech and his acceptance speech on November 4th. I’m not sure why you feel slighted now, or “saddened”. Not only did he not mention gays, he didn’t mention straights, whites, blacks, or any races or orientations at all. He only mentioned religions (and those who don’t believe at all) because it was on topic.

I will agree that Warren was terrible.

Brenda

January 20th, 2009

I too felt slighted. Although, he did say that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. That may have been his way of adding us in. We’ll see.

Ryan

January 20th, 2009

I don’t understand why you would feel slighted when the only groups Obama mentioned were religious ones. (And non-believers, which I thought was GREAT).

Warren Terra

January 20th, 2009

Barack Obama included gays in both his DNC nomination speech and his acceptance speech on November 4th.

And Obama included gays in his speech at the concert on Sunday.

I mean, I understand your feeling slighted, but on the other hand Ryan’s point is relevant: the only population categories mentioned were religious ones, and Obama included atheists there (breaking new ground, I think, for a President, though Obama has occasionally done this before as a candidate)

Raj Saxena

January 20th, 2009

I now fear that gay Americans are seen as a less insignificant part of Barack Obama’s America.

Don’t be so sure: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

Timothy Kincaid

January 20th, 2009

Some perhaps missed the full text of the speech. The President addressed

Religious Differences: “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers”,

Racial Differences:“men and women and children of every race and every faith”.

Ethnic Differences:“every language and culture”

I look forward to the day when divisions based on sexual orientation will receive the same attention on a national scale that do divisions based on religion, race, or ethnicity.

In the meanwhile, this is a day of celebration.

Ryan

January 20th, 2009

Ah, man. The desire to be offended on this site is overwhelming. I guess I can’t hack it.

Jarrett

January 20th, 2009

To me, the lack of specific reference to gay people is of a piece with Obama’s insistence on transcending blue state vs red state politics. The idea that we can feel included only if we are specifically named would seem to suggest that we are gay before we are Americans. This was always the downside of our well-intentioned litanies of inclusion, all the endless meetings we’ve spent composing phrases like “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual” and then repeating these to death. Even to some gay people, these lists are uninspiring, because they imply that none of us has a reason to feel a part of our society unless we are called by name. If that’s the case, we should just demand that the president read the entire phone book at every speech. Then each of us would really feel included.

As an environmentalist, I could be equally offended by Obama’s reference to “roads and bridges,” but not public transit, in his passage on economic stimulus. But this morning I choose not to be. There will be time for that tomorrow.

Charles Lanigan

January 20th, 2009

I guess the white house website has a new webmaster. The new site is pretty cool including a piece on the civil rights site notably “Support for the LGBT Community”!

Emily K

January 20th, 2009

I 100% agree with Jarrett. We will TRULY be included when no mention is necessary.

Joe

January 20th, 2009

I’m more impressed by the lofty promises on the new whitehouse.gov. I’ll believe civil unions when I see them, but the promise has been made.

louise

January 20th, 2009

I think you’re overly sensitive on the gay thing. Obama mentioned gay people in every speech he made over the weekend. In this speech he didn’t single out anyone except in the one section that referred to religion. Slipping ‘gay’ in there wouldn’t really have been appropriate ;-)

He also didn’t mention disabled people, as he had on Saturday. I didn’t take this to mean he doesn’t care about them either.

Joe

January 20th, 2009

People wondered if Warren would end his prayer “in Jesus name” or if he would for just one moment in time drop his arrogance and say a prayer that was inclusive. Well we got our answer when he not only prayed in Jesus name but he went out of his way to name Jesus in four languages.

What a complete dickhead this sorry excuse for a man is.

bigfathooters

January 20th, 2009

I went out to have a smoke when Warren prayed. He makes me want to vomit, the scum moneymaker.

homer

January 20th, 2009

I left the room for most of Warren’s speechifying but returned in time to hear him mangle the kids names. What a waste of oxygen. They should have had Aretha sing two songs instead.

CrankyOtter

January 21st, 2009

The only way I could stomach the Warren invocation was through this lens someone offered: Having Warren invoke the beginning is like unto how Bush ran his administration. Then there’s the transition where Obama gets sworn in, and the much more inclusive Lowery leads us into the next administration. Sort of bookending the ceremony with contrasts of what was and what will be.

Plus, it gave that annoying creep enough of a platform that his church (so I heard) pulled down all of its anti-gay propaganda (at least for today), and thwarted him from speaking out against Obama to his masses. Still don’t like him.

Still don’t know if it was a good choice, but thinking in these contexts helps me make sense of it.

(And I parsed Lowery’s ending as very ’60s hippie/ this land is your land vibed. am I wrong?)

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1646: Execution in New Netherlands Colony

Today In History, 1741: An Early Ex-Gay Testimony

Today In History, 1962: Supreme Court Rules Physique Magazines Are Not Pornographic

Today In History, 1972: United Church of Christ Ordains First Gay Minister

Today In History, 1978: Rainbow Flag Debuts

Born On This Day, 1935: Larry Kramer

Born On This Day, 1963: George Michael

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.