Obama's Other Inauguration Pastor Not for Gay Marriage, but Condemns Rick Warren Remarks
Rev. Joseph Lowery, the pastor giving the benediction (the other religious component) at Obama's inauguration, is not for same-sex marriage either, though he does condemn Rick Warren's equation of gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia.
Says Lowery to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
"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. So I have a little cultural shock with that. But I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country.
"I think [Warrens equation of gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia is] wrong. I condemn it. I take all kinds of sharp and robust differences with that kind of denigration. But even so, I will not refuse to be on a program with him because we have these differences. That's what the president-elect proposes to do. Bring people together with different views and hopefully out of these discussions and out of association we can find common ground to serve common good."
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
For all our Rick Warren updates, click here.
(via joe.my.god)
Posted Dec. 24,2008 at 11:37 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Inauguration, Joseph Lowery, News, Rick Warren | Permalink
We've tried this "incremental" bullshit for years. How much has that gotten us other than 30 states passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? Other than a new administration that now says it is gonna push back repealing DADT? Other than the nonpassage of hate crime legislation?
That approach hasn't gotten us anywhere.
No one should ever be asked to wait for their rights. I will never be quiet until my full rights have been recognized and protected.
My being shrill may turn off some people, but your silence gets no one's attention, and as a result, no action.
Posted by: Eric | Dec 25, 2008 2:11:23 AM
"We all struggle over our own narrow viewpoints of the world"? And you know this how, exactly? Speak for yourself, thanks.
My "narrow viewpont" is that all people are equal. That's the "viewpoint" of the Constitution. It is a "viewpoint" that anyone who claims to represent the views of any benevolent fictional god should hold.
My "narrow viewpoint" is, in fact, widely encompassing. Just as Christianity is theoretically supposed to be. Just as you'd expect from anyone else who has known a civil rights struggle.
Lowery is a product of his time, but that doesn't make it okay for him to believe something that is wrong and, frankly, evil. He should know better than to discriminate against others. And it's never too late to get it right.
Posted by: ohplease | Dec 25, 2008 1:01:44 PM
OHPLEASE,
your viewpoint is not narrow at all. i am paraphrasing here: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these rights is the pur-fuckin-suit of happiness.
what is it that those jerk-offs don't get? let's all memorize this: separation of church and state, separation of church and state ... ad infinitum.
the church deals in faith, the govt should deal in laws. give unto ceaser ... as jebus reportedly said.
Posted by: nic | Dec 26, 2008 12:48:47 AM
The writers of the Constitution themselves did not truly practice what they enshrined in our founding documents, but they did it anyway (even saw it in their hearts to count blacks as 3/5 of a person for the southern state representation). However, you seem to avoid that little problem in your response to my posting, perhaps because it reinforces my point.
Presidents Roosevelt (both), Lincoln, and Johnson did not come into office believing in true racial or gender equality, but they were able to advance the cause of both largely through activists who knew they would never be the paragons of equality in their hearts, but opened a dialogue with each and through their efforts connected their sense of fairness for all to these issues. It has been a long fight for both -- and true racial and gender equality are still not fully realized yet, although we are closer to the goal -- but the most fruitful progression has always occurred through working as a collective, even if some of those actors had ulterior feelings.
But thanks, ohplease, for letting me know that you believe in the rule of law and are free of prejudice or personal struggle of any kind whatsoever. I, as a person of color, need to live in reality -- which means the rule of law is as strong as the people who abide by and enforce it, and having to stand strong against despising a society still steeped in its parochialism of race, sex, and gender.
Posted by: Foochy | Dec 26, 2008 5:38:44 PM
I am still waiting to legally marry my pet goat Larry.
Will that be part of the DADT to be approved by Congress in 2010?
Posted by: Tony the Tiger | Dec 27, 2008 12:09:41 AM
It is only because we are accustomed to hearing the most vile lies and accusations against gays on a regular basis from members of the clergy that we can be persuaded that Obama choice of arch-homophobe Warren is simply Obama's attempt to bring both sides together in a dialogue on gay rights. We would never find it acceptable if Obama had chosen an outspoken racist or antisemite. Nor would Obama ever choose such a bigot. But because we are so desensitized to gay bashing by preachers we don't find it as shocking when Obama offers such a person the honor of giving the invocation at his inauguration. Nor do we see Lowery's embrace of separate but equal civil unions for gays as objectionable as separate but equal water fountains for blacks. Sorry, but there is no reason anyone should be denied their basic rights simply because people like Rev. Lowery are not accustomed to the idea of gay marriage.
Posted by: Bertha Vanation | Dec 27, 2008 4:33:17 AM
I think this is my first time making a comment on this site. But, as a gay person who also happens to be African American, please allow me to add my perspective.
I think we are using a weak strategy towards achieving full equality. First, I think we must educate heterosexuals about the legal benefits that come with marriage. We have to educate them about how marriage protects the children we adopt. We also have to educate them about sexual orientation. See, when heterosexuals see us on television laughing and kissing our partners in front of a marriage official, they think we are making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Some of us need to take a more serious approach to the issue of marriage.
Finally, the public most understand why we want to marry, and heterosexuals must understand who we are: we want the legal protections of marriage, marriage protects our adopted children, and our sexual orientation is just like heterosexual feelings except we are only attractive to the opposite sex. 'personal prejudices should not become law,' and 'would you discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation' are some of the slogans we should use.
Posted by: Mel Smith | Dec 27, 2008 2:06:15 PM
@TONY THE TIGER'
i suppose if you truly want to marry your pet goat larry, or marry within your species, say a bengal or african tiger, i don't have too much of a problem with it. but goats have a bitch of a problem signing contracts and agreements and shit -- what with the hooves and all. believe me, i know. i tried that with a bull once. he had a sweet face and he was hung like, well, a bull, but no one would let him sign for a mortgage. but go for it, dude. more power to you. just don't come slinking back when arkansas will not let you and larry adopt a kid (get it?). gawd! what a moron you are.
Posted by: nic | Dec 27, 2008 8:01:50 PM