Box Turtle Bulletin

Debate Over Rick Warren Continues

Hillary Rosen appeared on Anderson Copper’s AC360 on CNN to talk about Obama’s selection of Rick Warren, where she called this selection an “outrageous mistake.” She’s clearly angry about this choice. Good for her.

Outrage over Warren’s recent comments in which he equated the relationships of his “many gay friends” to child rape, incest and polygamy were just reaching its peak when the Obama team made the announcement. The inaugural committee has already issued their talking points. They go like this:

• This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.
• In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world’s most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
• Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
• As he’s said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That’s the only way we’ll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
• The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
• And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

There are a number of pastors who can disagree without being disagreeable. Pastor Warren just doesn’t fit the bill. I cannot allow my relationship to be considered “equivalent” — his assented characterization — to child rape or incest. A man who hold such profound animosity with his fellow Americans to say such a thing has no place in this celebration.

Rev. Joseph Lowery is an excellent choice to deliver the benediction, but that doesn’t excuse Warren’s selection for the invocation.  “Balance” isn’t achieved, for example, by having a segregationist and a civil rights worker, or an anti-Semite with a Rabbi. There would be no justification to have a segregationist or an anti-Semite as part of the program to begin with. Nor is there any for having Warren at the podium as well.

But hey, thanks for including a band in the parade.

HRC and PFAW Respond To Rick Warren’s Selection For Inaugural Invocation

The Human Rights Campaign sent this open letter to President-Elect Barack Obama:

Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on.  Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.

We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country.  And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends. 

But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.  Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.

People for the American Way also denounced the selection:

…[T]he sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn’t need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.

Rick Warren To Deliver Invocation at Inauguration

The New York Times’ Katharine Seelye is reporting that Rick Warren, the pastor at Saddleback Church, has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremony.

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. (It can’t. No law or state constitution can.).

Warren himself has acknowledged that the only difference between himself and Focus On the Family’s James Dobson is just “a matter of tone.”  So given President-elect Obama’s stated commitment to bringing the country together, it’s hard to fathom the reasoning behind choosing such a divisive figure. What’s worse, this decision to include Warren revives memories of the controversy surrounding ex-gay advocate Donnie McClurkin’s partication in an Obama campaign event in South Carolina during the primaries. This announcement will certainly be taken as another punch in the gut.

More details and reactions to follow, I’m sure. You can count on it.

Update: Are you looking for someone to email to express your outrage? Well, a well-placed source just provided these email addresses:

• parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)
• dnoble@barackobama.com
• bbond@barackobama.com
• steve@hildebrandtewes.com (Steve Hildebrand)
• fred.hochberg@ptt.com

You can also contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office. She chaired the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and made the announcement.

Update: People for the American Way respond.

DADT Foregone to be Long Gone

The New York Times has a profile on Admiral Mike Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen’s term will not expire until a year into Obama’s administration and the Times thinks the transition will be smooth.

They also reveal that Mullen is pragmatic about the end of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell and gives a hint that the Washington establishment assumes that President-Elect Obama will keep his commitments to the gay community:

In preparation for his new commander in chief, Admiral Mullen … has also had initial conversations with his top commanders about potential changes in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.

Mr. Obama has taken a strong stand against the law as a moral issue, although his team has signaled that he will not push for its repeal in the early months of his administration to avoid the kind of blowup that engulfed President Bill Clinton when he sought to lift an outright ban on gay men and lesbians in the military in his first days in office. (In a cautionary tale for Admiral Mullen, that 1993 storm raged in part because Gen. Colin L. Powell, who was the holdover chairman of the Joint Chiefs from the first Bush administration, publicly disagreed with what became a Clinton compromise solution of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”)

Fifteen years later, Mr. Obama is of the view that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is long out of date and that it is time for gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

“The president-elect’s been pretty clear that he wants to address this issue,” Admiral Mullen said in the interview. “And so I am certainly mindful that at some point in time it could come.”

A friend of Admiral Mullen said the admiral had begun to think about practical implications like housing, but Admiral Mullen said there had been no formal planning or task forces on the issue.

Let’s hope this means that the military will not only go along with Obama’s efforts but will be supportive of ending this bastion of institutionalized discrimination.

Obama’s LGBT Civil Rights Agenda

The website for President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team has posted a fairly comprehensive list of policy objectives for the LGBT community, including fully inclusive employment non-discrimination protections, hate crime protections, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” expanded adoption rights and “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples.”

So while I’m happy to see the president-elect sign on to a very comprehensive LGBT civil rights agenda, I would be very surprised to see White House leadership on these issues. I expect that Obama will have his hands full with the economy and pressing issues in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. Besides, the ball will always be Congress’s court anyway. After all, that’s where all legislation originates, and it will be up to congressional leaders to draft the legislation and place them on the calendar for a vote.

Nevertheless, it is a great thing to see. And who knew that a gay agenda would come from a straight man?

Click here to read Obama’s civil rights plan for the LGBT community

Obama Transition Team’s Inclusive Non-Discrimination Policy

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition office is hiring, and they’ve posted their job application form on the web. This is your chance to work for the White House. And guess what? In the new administration, you’ll be protected from discrimination regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity:

The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law.

This statement goes above and beyond the legal requirements. Currently employers are free to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Gender Identity is not included in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s policy on non-discrimination. The Bush administration’s appointments page does not contain a non-discrimination policy.

Things are already looking up.

[Hat tip: Connecticut Employment Law Blog]

Family “Research” Council: Racism for Sale

The Family “Research” Council is putting on its Values Voters Summit right now in Washington, D.C., and it appears that among the “Voter Values” they’re pushing is Aunt Jemimah-like racial caricatures:

Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.

The FRC claims they didn’t know that the packaging was offensive. It’s hard to imagine what world they live in where these images don’t conjure ugly racial stereotypes from the earliest part of the 20th century. The horribly racist images run rampant throughout the packaging, proving this FRC-sanctioned vendor to be an equal-opportunity offender:

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama’s politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for ”Open Border Fiesta Waffles” that says it can serve ”4 or more illegal aliens.” The recipe includes a tip: ”While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?”

Co-sponsors of the summit include Gary Bauer’s American Values, Focus On the Family Action, the Alliance Defense Fund, and — most ironically — Rev. Harry Jackson’s High Impact Leadership Coalition. Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush and Lou Dobbs. Dobbs, reportedly saw the box and loved it:

According to the the site’s blog, Lou Dobbs, who was also speaking at the convention, lauded the product Friday.

“My wife will love this,” Dobbs purportedly said. A photograph of Dobbs with a box and one of the sellers is online here.

The seller has since removed the online post.

The Books-A-Million bookstore is reportedly set to sell these boxes on their shelves.

Update: TalkBytes.com has the photo of Lou Dobbs posing with the Obama Waffles box that was pulled from the seller’s web site:

[Hat tip for the update: Pam Spaulding]

Political Party Condescends to Gays

A lawsuit has revealed some rather discouraging details about the relationship between the Republican Party and the gay community. The Peter Pace controversy highlights the ways in which the Party was condescending and dismissive of gay Americans.

In March 2007, Major General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the continued relevance of the anti-gay Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy which discriminates against gay service members.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Gen Pace told the Chicago Tribune.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

This sort of statement was met with shock. Some, such as Carl Levin the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a strong rebuke:

“I strongly disagree with the chairman’s views that homosexuality is immoral.”

However, this was not the universal response. Both leading presidential candidates for the Republican nomination were less forceful, one ignored questions while the other said that it was up to “others to conclude” whether homosexuality is immoral. Both positions were later repackaged – as a result of public outrage – but the initial response was a total lack of concern.

This dismissal of the blatant insult was also shared at the Party level.

A series of emails released as part of a lawsuit, and analyzed by the Washington Blade, demonstrates a willingness to condescend to gay constituents. The Republican Party sought the weakest response possible and contemplated releasing the response solely to the gay press while seeking to keep it quiet from the mainstream press. They didn’t want to offend their religious voters by suggesting that gay people might not be inherently immoral.

OH WAIT, I MISTYPED

It was not the Republican Party that was condescending. It was the Democratic Party.

The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee that condemned Pace’s statements was Republican John Warner from Virginia.

The Presidential candidate who ignored the question was Barack Obama. The one who said it was up to others to conclude whether homosexuality was immoral was Hillary Clinton.

And it was the Democrat Party that sought a weak response provided solely to gay press.

As the Blade reports

LaVera e-mailed Karen Finney, DNC’s director of communications: “Brian [Bond] is concerned that we might take hits if we don’t comment on it — not so much on the merits of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ but on Pace’s language about immorality, etc. Personally, I’m concerned that we’ll create too many problems if [DNC Chair Howard] Dean condemns the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during a time of war. I think it’s better to do a statement from a DNC spokesperson saying Pace’s rhetoric isn’t constructive.”

In the protracted e-mail exchange obtained by the Blade, LaVera and Daughtry advocate for sending a statement only to reporters working for gay press and keeping any mention of it off the DNC web site. They also oppose sending the statement to mainstream news wires. That way, the DNC can have it both ways — placating the gays with a toothless statement while ensuring that any faintly pro-gay statements don’t gain traction or visibility in mainstream media. The DNC leadership wouldn’t want to go out on a limb and actually stand up for the dignity of gay service members who had just been called “immoral,” because that might offend one of those religious voters that Dean and Daughtry are so desperate to please.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not trying to suggest that the Republican Party as a whole is better on gay issues than the Democratic Party. That is clearly not the case.

However, I believe that we have, as a community, been willing to accept crumbs and scraps while paying for tenderloin. The gay community has been disproportionately generous with our money, our time, and our loyalty. And we receive so little in return. We would have seen the actions above if taken by Republicans as evidence of animus while we make excuses for Democrats who talk nicey-nice to our faces while treating us like the ugly red-headed stepchild of which they are ashamed.

I recognize the importance of political pragmatism. We gain nothing by supporting fringe candidates or by ignoring that some progress is better than none.

But I think that it is time for us to be upfront. It is time for us to tell our candidates, “I may be voting for you, but you stink on my issues.” It’s time to stop pretending that second-class is worthy of praise. We need to tell candidates, be they Republican or Democrat, that anything less than equality is discrimination, condescension, and morally bankrupt.

It’s now time for candidates of all stripes to come to realize that partial bigotry is bigotry, that partial inequality is inequality. They may get our vote, but they do not deserve our respect.

Tuesday was Super Duper for Gay Americans

At the conclusion of “America’s Primary”, the presidential primaries remain exciting. Senators Clinton and Obama are very close in delegate count and no one can know for certain whom will bear the Democrat banner.

Senator McCain is significantly ahead in delegate count and barring some unexpected event is likely to be the nominee. While there is still some life in the Republican primary and peculiar things do happen in politics, at the moment we will assume that McCain will be running against either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

But what does that mean to gay Americans?

Quite a bit, actually. Below I will explore where the candidates stand on a few issues that are of particular importance to our community.

Marriage

None of the three support marriage equality. Yet none of the three candidates are in favor of a constitutional amendment barring states from instituting or recognizing marriage between gay couples.

Interestingly, John McCain may have the most invested in opposing such an amendment. Citing his federalist ideals, McCain argued passionately on the floor of the Senate against the passage of the amendment.

However, this does not mean that McCain is in favor of gay marriage. Although he has expressed in the past that he is in favor of some recognition of gay couples, he campaigned for a constitutional amendment banning both marriage and any other form of recognition in his own state. It lost.

But in any case, with McCain as the Republican nominee, this election cycle is unlikely to have banning gay marriage as any central theme.

It is uncertain to what extent any candidate would champion rights for gay couples.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have expressed approval of overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or at least that portion of it that defines federal recognition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Senator McCain is very much in favor of that part of DOMA that releases states from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Senator Clinton also seems to favor keeping that restriction in place. From a pragmatic point of view, I too want this upheld for some time as I think that without it a federal marriage ban would have much more support.

There is some question as to whether McCain could support the federal recognition of marriage as defined by the various states (overturning that half of DOMA), especially those which do so by means of positive legislative action. His federalist philosophy may well override his personal affinity to an opposite sex definition of marriage if the appropriate argument was presented.

Ultimately, the decision to overturn DOMA is up to Congress. And while a vote for Clinton or Obama could be argued to be a mandate to overturn the bill, a McCain election would probably not be construed to be a mandate to keep it in place.

The most significant impact that the new President will have on the lives of gay persons in relationships will be on appointments to Department heads. On that level, it is likely that gay couples will fare better overall under Democrats than Republicans. However, it is also likely that McCain’s appointments will be far more centrist and moderate than those of some other Republicans.

ENDA

Both Clinton and Obama back non-discrimination in housing and employment.

It appears that McCain does not favor ENDA. It is unknown whether his opposition rises to the level of a veto should Congress pass the legislation.

DADT

Both Clinton and Obama have expressed interest in overturning DADT.

McCain has hedged his bets a bit. He claims that senior military officers claim that the policy is working. This leaves him open to change in policy should “senior military officers” tell him that the policy is no longer a necessity.

Judicial Nominees

This is a subject that is raised as being of paramount importance for the advancement of any faction’s social agenda. But it is also the least easy to predict.

Conservative Republicans have nominated judges for the bench, and even the Supreme Court that have championed causes that conservatives find abhorrent. And Democrats have appointed judges whose decisions were decidedly conservative.

Ironically, many of the decisions decried as the actions of “liberal activist judges” were made by conservative judges taking positions that were strictly constructed rather than simply parroting the platitudes of their political friends. It is my personal opinion that those judges who are most exact in their interpretation of law will eventually be those judges that establish equality for gay persons – and on such terms that their decisions will be difficult to fault. Equality under the law is, at its heart, a conservative ideal.

We can assume that to some extent Democrats will appoint judges that are somewhat more approachable on gay issues than will a Republican. But McCain is no usual Republican when it comes to judicial appointments.

In 2005, Senator McCain was part of the “gang of 14”, a group of moderate Senators of both parties that stood in the way of filibuster efforts to force controversial and highly partisan judges through approval. While McCain has promised to appoint “strict constructionist judges”, it is unlikely that he would make appointments based on partisan ideals or conservative ideology that did not have bipartisan respect. An adamantly anti-gay judge is unlikely to make McCain’s list.

Overall Comfort and Access

The candidate with the most comfort and ease with gay people, Rudy Giuliani, has been eliminated from the running. But all of the remaining credible candidates have demonstrated that they are more-or-less approachable to our community.

Hillary Clinton will probably continue in the vein of her husband and her Senate career. She will probably not be closely aligned to our community and will likely place us lower in priority if she needs to broker a deal, but she has been known to have some gay friends – at least in the past. She is likely to give access to gay groups and perhaps appoint a gay liaison.

Barack Obama is more difficult to measure. His religious community has a strong social justice history and is officially favorable to gay equality. But his campaign has shown insensitivity to the community by pushing forward some within the black community that have a history of homophobia and support for the ex-gay movement. However, he has strong gay support and has spoken out against homophobia. It is likely that Obama will provide access to gay groups.

John McCain is a social conservative, but this seems to be tempered by a federalist streak. Further, I have watched McCain for many years and have yet to see an overtly hostile attitude towards gay people. I recall many years ago when Lon Mabon’s anti-gay group, the Oregon Citizen Alliance, invited him to speak, McCain came and gave them a little lecture about being tolerant of others with whom they disagree.

Some have expressed alarm over robo-calls made by McCain’s campaign that discussed “special rights”, but the candidate did pull the calls immediately upon being informed of their content. It’s difficult to know to what extent McCain approved the calls, but the content seemed inconsistent with his history.

The jury is still out on McCain, but I don’t anticipate anti-gay activism to be a part of his campaign or his administration. Further, as the more homophobic elements of the Republican Party have been openly attacking him, McCain may not feel that he owes anything to them if elected. I am cautiously optimistic that McCain would give access and a fair hearing on gay issues.

Conclusion

Gay people should be encouraged with the current state of the elections.

While true gay champions such as Kucinich or Gravel have been eliminated as possible nominees, the two remaining Democrat candidates support gay equality, if to a somewhat lesser degree. While I personally don’t see much conviction in their support, we can be sure that gay people will not be treated with hostility by either administration.

Further, gay people should be overjoyed that Huckabee’s theocratic campaign has been all-but-eliminated from any chance of winning. A Huckabee administration would prioritize anti-gay discrimination as part of a Kingdom of God in America agenda.

In the upcoming national election I anticipate that the differences between the two candidates (whomever they turn out to be) on gay issues will have little resonance or impact on the election. We will not have to spend the rest of the year hearing about how marriage needs to be “protected”. Nor will we hear about “San Francisco Values” or an “attack on the family”.

And I anticipate that the next President, regardless of party, will not be overtly hostile to gay people or gay couples and may indeed be open to arguments about equality under the law.

Barack Obama at Ebenezer Baptist Church

Sen. Barack Obama spoke this morning at Ebenezer Baptist Church on the day before Martin Luther King Day about some of the ways in which Dr. King’s dream is still a dream:

For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

It’s a great speech. Joe Klein at Time’s web site has posted it in full.

The Weekly Standard on Donnie and Barack

Suffice it to say that I virtually never agree with the neo-conserviative The Weekly Standard. But today I’m reminded of my wise father’s saying, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Just about everything Dean Barnett writes about Donnie McClurkin’s appearance in Sen. Barak Obama’s Gospel tour in South Carolina elicited an amen from me. Read the recap here.

Donnie McClurkin at the 2004 GOP Convention

We mentioned earlier that ex-gay Donnie McClurkin will be featured on Senator Obama’s gospel concert tour in Souther Carolina. McClurkin has denied having made anti-gay sentiments. Here’s his testimony on the Exodus web site. I’ll let you read it and decide for yourself. I personally have trouble with the prayer, “Every enemy of God is an enemy of mine” — having been labeled an enemy of God on more than one occasion in my life.

Just three years ago, McClurkin appeared at the GOP national convention. You can catch the video of his appearance at that convention here.

Obama’s Campaign Gospel Tour To Feature Ex-Gay Advocate

Senator Obama’s campaign has planned an “Embrace the Change” gospel concert tour to consist of three dates in South Carolina featuring five acts, one of whom is Donnie McClurkin according to the New York Times. (Yes, the tour is named “Embrace the Change” which XGW also finds worth noting.)

Several years ago the Washington Post noted McClurkin’s public statements on his own sexual history and views on gay conversion:

McClurkin wrote on a Christian Web site in 2002 that he struggled with homosexuality after he was molested by male relatives when he was 8 and 13. “I’ve been through this and have experienced God’s power to change my lifestyle,” he wrote. “I am delivered and I know God can deliver others, too.”

Via AmericaBlog