Principle and Practice

By Michael Gryboski
Local Kicks Contributor

Ever since Barack Obama chose Pastor Rick Warren to pray the invocation for the inauguration ceremony social progressives have complained endlessly.

The same people who continually lecture the rest of us about respecting other people’s viewpoints gladly threw those convictions out the window the moment an evangelical became visible. In the end, this whole episode showcases the hypocrisy of many so-called progressives. It also shows a fundamentally disturbing attribute found in the overall homosexual advocacy movement: the lack of definition for homophobia.

Rick Warren heads the 22,000 member Saddleback Church and opposes homosexuality and abortion. Warren got involved in the election when he hosted a forum for both candidates, asking various questions.

The tolerance of many who profess it openly was even then amusing as the major church state watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State denounced the forum as “an array of loaded questions…designed to prod McCain and Obama into explaining how they planned to base public policy on religion.” I wonder Obama wanted Warren to be part of the Inauguration ceremony because he was prodded with loaded questions. Americans United is doesn’t tolerate Warren, as Rob Boston of that organization referred to the pastor as “just another Falwell wannabee” and even went as far as to say “It’s a shame he is appearing at this important event.”

When Obama selected Warren to give the Invocation prayer, there was a firestorm and it was almost exclusively from the political left. Homosexual advocacy organizations opposed the decision because they saw Warren as homophobic.

The Human Rights Campaign, a major organization in homosexual advocacy, sent a letter to Obama referring to his decision as “a genuine blow to LGBT Americans” and called Warren “anti-gay.” Others have referred to Warren and just about anybody who agrees with any part of his moral stance against homosexuality homophobic. This whole hubbub, which has done next to nothing to hurt Obama’s nationwide approval ratings despite a constant obsession on the part of mass media, was based off of a very broad definition of homophobia which indeed may be harmful to our democratic system.

Here’s an example: on MSNBC, where news analysis program after news analysis program bashed Warren for his views, broadcasted an interview with the United Methodist minister and civil rights campaigner Joseph Lowery. On the MSNBC program 1600 host David Shuster interviewed Lowery in an apparent attempt to further attack Warren since Lowery himself is noted for being a supporter of the gay community. When Shuster asked Lowery his opinion on sharing the stage with a man like Warren Lowery replied, “It’s ironic: we usually criticized politicians for failing to keep their word and here Obama is catching flack for keeping his word. He promised during the campaign to bring diverse groups together, to reach across the divide…I think that’s what he’s doing.” Lowery added that although he sharply disagrees with Warren on the issue of gay rights “even so I will not refuse to be on a program with him because we have this difference.”

Interesting to note was that Shuster considered support for gay marriage to be essential to supporting gay rights, a point that Lowery countered, “Well I’ve never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people I have some difficulty with the term ‘gay marriage’ because deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind marriage is associated with man and woman.” I wonder if that means Lowery is “anti-gay” as well. But Shuster coming to the conclusion that someone who support gay rights would automatically subscribe to the entire list of items is not the only troubling example. Joe Solmonese, head of HRC, wrote the following in a Washington Post column: “We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, ‘We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry’”? Opposing Solmonese views is tantamount to anti-Semitism.

Both these and other examples of people deeming any opposition at all to the homosexual advocacy movement as homophobia is troubling. Can anyone criticize anything regarding the movement in question? Or is the movement so infallible, so immaculate, that no one can say anything at all in criticism, even constructive criticism?

To say yes to the previous question lays a disturbing precedent. Making opposition to things like gay marriage be deemed homophobia is like declaring all political dissent treason. The United States benefits from a system that specifically defines what constitutes a traitor, lest all people who oppose the status quo in any way be thrown into prison. Maybe we as a society should work on creating a workable definition for homophobia, lest other outrageous actions like the maelstrom over Warren merely giving an invocation prayer be created.

Michael Gryboski
lives in Alexandria.

Sources:

1.Rob Boston, “Inaugural Mistake: Rick Warren Is The Wrong Man For Obama’s Swearing-In”, December 18th, AD 2008, http://blog.au.org/2008/12/18/inaugural-mistake-rick-warren-is-the-wrong..., accessed 12/27/2008.

2.Interview of Rev. Joseph Lowery by David Shuster, “1600”, MSNBC, aired 12/23/2008, found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5DbPMrByA, accessed 12/27/2008.

3.Joe Solmonese, “Obama's Inaugural Mistake”, Washington Post, Friday, December 19, 2008; Page A35.

--http://www.localkicks.com/towntalk/the_word/Principle_and_Practice