The political goals of the gay rights movement are misdirected. Bitter controversy erupted when the president-elect invited evangelical Rick Warren to deliver an invocation at today’s inauguration ceremony. The pastor had urged his congregation to vote for Proposition 8, an amendment to the California constitution that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Several journalists, politicians, and gay activists demanded that Obama rescind his invitation to Warren. Joe Solmonese—president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay rights organization in the country—declared Warren’s presence a “genuine blow to LGBT Americans.” Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, spoke even more harshly. “The God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know,” Robinson said.
Amidst the furor, a few words by Barack Obama went unnoticed. President Obama stated on gay marriage, “My religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” In its endorsement of Obama for the presidency, the HRC made no mention of Obama’s stance on gay marriage, instead citing his “support for LGBT equality ... his unwavering commitment to civil rights.” This omission characterizes a hypocrisy that has helped to define the relationship between Obama and gay Americans for months.
During the presidential race, when I asked Columbia students about Obama’s stance on marriage, the most common answer I received was the most distressing. Obama, I was assured, was simply lying. Gay marriage is a political minefield. Therefore, Obama should not foolishly sacrifice his candidacy. I could think of better ways to achieve gay rights than fooling the American public into voting for officials who expressed sentiments contrary to their beliefs. Still, I understood the need for politicking, even if I didn’t like it. However, gay activists themselves need not sacrifice their principles for the sake of mainstream politics.
Those who demanded that Warren be uninvited chose their enemy carefully. An evangelical pastor on the right end of the political spectrum provided a convenient target. We need only ignore some of the widespread ads of the Prop 8 campaign—a picture of Obama smiling, a quote reading, “I’m not in favor of gay marriage,” and a banner reading, “Vote YES on Prop 8.” Indeed, the advertisements were misleading, for Obama spoke against Prop 8. Nonetheless, the president’s words didn’t need much twisting. Anti-gay sentiments should only be vilified, it seems, when coming from the mouth of someone we’re supposed to hate.
Of course, Obama and Warren are worlds apart. Warren has made uncivil comments comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, whereas Obama has repeatedly reached out to gay Americans. Yet there is a more important distinction to be made. Warren is a private citizen, and Obama is an elected official. So far as I can see, Obama gets a free pass on what actually matters, while gay activists issue petty and futile ultimatums on who should be allowed to speak at a ceremony. We should instead be expending our political energies to ensure that gay people be treated equally under the law. Let’s hold to our convictions. But let’s do so honestly and fairly, not just when conservative Christians enter the scene.
Indeed, more than half the nation is on the wrong side of history regarding gay marriage. The mainstream position is tied to deep social, cultural, and religious norms. There are solutions beyond excluding Rick Warren—or the 52 percent of Californians who do not support gay marriage —from visibility.
Gay activists should not respond to wrongheaded beliefs with condemnation and stigmatization, attempting to sweep all disagreement out of sight. Even at Columbia, these antagonistic instincts kick in. Spectator criticized the programming of Queer Awareness Month and was summarily accused of outrageous and unacceptable homophobia. The University continues to exclude ROTC from campus, blaming the military for a federal law upheld by our elected officials. The conversation ends before it can begin.
I am tired of zero-sum culture wars that fail to acknowledge ideological pluralism. When I first heard of Obama’s decision to invite Rick Warren, I felt pleasantly surprised. I come from an evangelical community that is wary of Obama, and I appreciated the gesture of good will. I knew that many evangelicals had criticized Warren for reaching out to Obama during the presidential race. I appreciated Warren for his willingness to engage with Obama.
The story even had a happy ending, although the script differed from the demands of those who sought to exclude Warren. In a slightly awkward gesture, Obama also invited Bishop Robinson to deliver a prayer during the ceremony. Pastor Warren himself praised the decision to invite Robinson and Obama’s desire “to be the president of every citizen.” These were the inclusive politics of conversation.
Obama’s stance on marriage may be a promising one after all. “It is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian,” he wrote, “to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided.” Obama emphasizes a distinction between private and public matters. His private stance, though not yet in solidarity with gay people, is open to change. Mainstream America, too, seems to be moving in the right direction. Rather than maintain enemy fire with all who disagree, we should strive for conversation.
The author is a Columbia College sophomore. He is the President of the Columbia College Class of 2011 and the treasurer of the Columbia Queer Alliance and Queer Awareness Month.