You were just hustled by a member of one of America’s oldest fraternities of snake-oil salesmen: the slick-talking preacher. I’m sorry to have to tell you this, because it’s clear that you both want to sincerely move forward into a new era of change with a spirit of openness, trust, and respect for the differences and disagreements that inevitably divide any group of 300 million people. You want to believe that Rick Warren really likes you, really likes gay people, really wants peace and equal rights for everyone as much as you do. I’m sorry — it’s just not true. He acted as if he likes you. Maybe he really does at some level. But that doesn’t change his job, and part of his job is to do things to hurt your family and families like yours.
At best, Rick Warren is a political opportunist who sings different tunes for different audiences, and is willing to change his colors on the surface if he has an opportunity for the spotlight. Unfortunately for that Rick Warren, he’s on the record about gays, abortion, and the proper submissive place of wives any number of times, and he can’t fool all of the people all of the time. At worst, Rick Warren may simply believe everything he says. In that case, he’s cynically furthering a far-right agenda to equate the pro-choice movement with Nazi concentration camps, keep gay sinners down, and keep wives submissive to their husbands by acting as the movement’s “nice guy, good cop” face.
I can understand why you might have made this mistake. You’d never heard of Rick Warren before all this, and your first reaction was that he must be an old-school fire-and-brimstone preacher in the style of Fred Phelps, railing against godless fags. He’s not. While you weren’t paying attention, a new breed of anti-gay politicians and preachers has seeped out of the far right: the ones that pretend they really like gays. Strangely, some of them are the SAME PEOPLE who used to outright revile and insult gays to our faces. In fact, some of them still do, including Rick Warren.
Rick Warren is a likeable teddy bear with an affable personality. As you said, he doesn’t have a tacky tweed suit and televangelist hair; he looks like a dad from down the street. His church does good work on global poverty and HIV issues, and I’m told he’s one of the more moderate evangelical leaders; he’s even broken with most of the others by believing in global warming, fancy that. But even if you believe that Rick Warren is suddenly sincere in his desire to help gay families, that all this attention has suddenly made him realize that all those statement he’s made were big mistakes, he and his church have a VERY long way to go before you can ask anyone else in the gay community to just take his word for it. But I guess you didn’t get around to asking him to put his money where his mouth is, huh? Slick-talking preachers have a way of avoiding that.
On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher.
Melissa, I hate to break this to you, but just because someone owns your albums? It doesn’t mean they’re not a homophobe. Just ask Liberace or Freddie Mercury. It certainly doesn’t mean that they don’t have anti-gay politics, that they’re not trying to further causes that don’t care if they hurt your family and friends in a number of different ways.
He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection.
I really wish you had asked him at that point what he was doing to ensure that every loving relationship has equal protection. Because somehow it seems like all he’s been doing in that direction is insisting that wives should submit to their husbands, and trying to keep gay folks from getting married and having families, spouting rhetoric repeatedly about how marriage is only for family and procreation, and therefore not for homosexuals. Obviously he wasn’t cultivating any regard whatsoever for families like yours.
Would he be in favor of civil unions? Somehow this never seems to get on the record. It might be because multiple courts and governmental ethics committees have found that civil unions violate Brown vs. Board of Education, which declared “separate but equal” against the law. The real opponents of marriage equality, Warren’s allies, are also against civil unions because they realize that civil union laws could be converted into marriage equality once the spectre of Brown is summoned. Like it or not, the stakes are marriage. (And I don’t like it personally, because I could care less about marriage — it’s the material rights and privileges attached by the government to it that really matter to me.)
On the other hand, if your ultimate goal was to get some of this stuff on the record — that Rick Warren believes that every loving relationship should have the same protections — then good job. Next time bring a video camera too, because not only would he have to stand by his words, but they’re words that would get him in trouble with a lot of his followers and friends. Oh oops — unless he claims he just made a mistake when he was talking to you, just like he supposedly did when addressing his entire congregation and comparing you to a pedophile or someone committing incest. Again, he could put his money where his mouth is by making a public statement. He won’t — he’s backed off of meeting with gay groups before, backed off of welcoming gay dads into his church’s Father’s Day programs, because he can’t take the heat from his evangelical cronies.
He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman.
…and then he sold you on one of the most common lines in the book, the excuse that’s been regurgitated by every right-wing politico or religious spokesperson who’s made it to the national stage in the last couple years. “It’s not about you, it’s about the definition of a word!” Another variation of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” which always sounds so funny while they’re torturing the sinner, or in these less inquisitorial times, just keeping the sinner locked out of legal rights and privileges. Please see Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee or Ellen Degeneres vs. John McCain for good examples of how not to just get bowled over by this argument. Please? You can be a celebrity AND stand up to political manipulation, it’s eminently possible.
He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays.
Oh that’s good. Hey wait a second. What about this second video that aired on NBC the DAY BEFORE before you talked to him. In this one he just says that giving into gay impulses is immature, insists that gay people should “delay gratification” instead (forever, of course) and implies that gay people are all irresponsible sluts. I guess that’s much better? Or maybe he realized he made a mistake AGAIN in the day before he talked to you. “Oooops, my bad! I smeared your people again and not only insisted you shouldn’t be able to get married, but also that you shouldn’t even have sex, because it would be like if I tried to get with every hot woman I see.”
He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids.
You know, I really do agree with you that there are some homophobic Christians out there who really are just afraid of what they don’t understand. I even believe that there are some out there who would experience a change of heart if they went and had dinner with your family. I’m not sure I believe that Warren is one of them. He knows what he’s doing. He chooses his words carefully. The day after you talked to him, his own words were pulled from his website: “Someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church.” Huh — maybe you really did change his mind? Or maybe he’s just aware that there’s enough pressure now that he has to back off of his more extremist views. Either way, I’m willing to go along with Mike Rogers’ characterization of the Saddlebackpedaling as a victory.
Maybe it will turn out for the best — who can say? But next time? It might be a good idea to do a little research before you make a public address to all the rest of the gays, asking us all to be noble and give this guy a pass in the name of peace and good will. You would come off like less of a huge sucker who had been taken in by a smooth-talking “love the sinner” line of bull. Sorry, I don’t mean to just pick on you. I have some things to say about Tammy’s companion piece too.
well, at times, it seems that the media presents us with target after target to smear, as if to say to us, “THIS IS THE GUY HOLDING YOU BACK!! GO GIT ‘IM!!!” and it does seem that my lovely gay family is so bruised and bettered and ready to fight back (myself included), that we attack and deem someone ANTI-GAY, and ready to SMEAR, simply when they don’t want the word “marriage” brought into our gay ceremonies.
For one thing, Tammy — the people who raised a hue and cry about this aren’t the mainstream media. They’re people like you and me, bloggers like Pam Spaulding who have been keeping an eye on Rick Warren for ages. Second, nobody’s ever complained seriously about anyone using the word “marriage” in a ceremony. They can’t legally enforce the use of a word — that’s freedom of speech. Even more importantly, marriage doesn’t mean the same thing in every religion. There are Christian faiths that embrace gay marriage. Some other church can’t tell them not to perform a religious ceremony for two men or two women — that’s freedom of religion. It’s none of Saddleback’s business or any church’s business what other churches do.
The issue, of course, is that marriage long ago was brought over onto the civil side. That’s when it stopped being a purely religious subject and became a matter of civil rights. The word “marriage” and “spouse” and legal definitions of marriage are all over our code of laws.
let’s say i am wearing a baseball cap. now what if i want to call it a yamaka? you know- it’s basically the same thing, but one is missing the sun visor. i don’t call my caps yamakas… cuz that is a religious name for a hat that is worn by religious people. now if i apply that thinking to this situation…. i would like to think of it as…. if they afford us the EXACT SAME RIGHTS, then who cares what it’s called? my friend joel can wear his yamaka. i can wear my hat. joel can light his menorah, i’ll light my candle. joel can eat his matzo ball soup, and i can break crackers into my soup. joel and hanna can have a piece of paper with the word MARRIAGE on it, and all 1200 rights… and i can have a piece of paper with who-cares on it, and all 1200 rights. the word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on sundays are told belongs to them. like yamaka, menorah, or matzo.
Again, there are plenty of gay folks who go to church on Sundays — churches that believe in marriage for everyone. The word “marriage” doesn’t belong to those churches any less that it does to right-wing homophobic churches. But the legal term “marriage” in the law does belong and must belong to all of us — equally, because it has the force of law. If you really think not using that word is the solution, then the only way is to REMOVE marriage from the law and call it something else, for everyone. Which is something plenty of people have advocated for, including me, but somehow I suspect that would be a VERY uphill battle.
You know, I like the idea of civil unions. The battle for the word “marriage” has always struck me as a cultural battle, not a legal one. It’s a fight to try to gain legitimacy along with that most suspect of political goals, “first-class citizenship” by laying claim to the same institution in the same name. It’s not about the real material conditions, that list of 1200 rights you mention, that were guaranteed by civil unions in Connecticut and which make a real difference in people’s lives. But here’s the thing — it’s precisely that cultural battle for “me too” legitimacy that made the Connecticut Supreme Court strike down civil unions and replace them with marriage, because our laws, made famous in Brown vs. Board of Education, will not tolerate a separate but equal solution.
A rose by any other name, in this country, does not smell as sweet, because the American people look down on roses that are called “fakeroses,” won’t buy synthetic diamonds because they’re not real enough, and put much stock in names. And that’s the law, like it or not. It frustrates me, personally, because I don’t think the state should be trying to legislate marriage at all — I just think all families should enjoy the same benefits and support. That’s why I support the Audre Lorde Project position on marriage, and the vision of equality expressed by Beyond Marriage — above and beyond the goals of the mainstream gay marriage movement.
So… unfortunately? The word “marriage” is not really the issue. It’s just a smokescreen. One that I’d happily dispense with, but the legal stakes are now at marriage, not any other name. Plus, Warren’s allies who oppose gay marriage (and whose movment he continues to support, even in his conversation with Melissa) also oppose civil unions, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned.
the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren… and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the “OTHER SIDE”. and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him.
Look, everyone who’s seen the man in action knows that Rick Warren seems friendly and nice and like he wants to give you a big loving hug. That’s his job; that’s the kind of preacher he is. Seriously. (Update: Check it out, the story of another homo he hugged who was a little more nonplussed.) Tomorrow, if he’s called onto the carpet by his more radical evangelical friends for saying what he said to Melissa, he’s going to be backpedaling in the other direction, although probably in private. Just like he did to the gay families that came to break bread with him at his church.
I’m sorry.
Love and best wishes,
Holly
(who is definitely a bigger meanie than Rick Warren is)
An afterword for commenters: I’ve already made my feelings about the whole inauguration thing clear in comments to Jill’s previous post. I imagine people will want to keep talking about that, however, so I’ll summarize: Obama is the new president. We shouldn’t be surprised when the president expediently flips the bird to a chunk of his base; that’s part of what presidents do, and disappointment is what you get for believing too much in change through electoral politics. I believe Kristin and Kristen (also in comments) that Rick Warren is a relatively “moderate” choice for Obama to curry favor with the massive evangelical voting block through. However, we should also be honestly outraged and express that outrage, because that’s part of the job of keeping the left wing as honest as possible — which if we’re lucky, is more honest than the right wing possibly could be.
Wow, Holly.
This is great. Thank you.
God, that post was long, disappointing (through no fault of Holly’s), and incredible all at the same time. I would have hoped that Melissa Etheridge would have developed a better bullshit detector during such a long career in the music business.
Excellent piece, Holly.
Awesome post.
Thank you so much for this. When I had read Etheridge’s response to talking to Warren, I just couldn’t believe it.
I’m with William in regards to Melissa Etheridge’s developing a better bullshit detector over the years, and I’m VERY sorry that she and her family have fallen for Warren’s “nice cop” ruse. I won’t even get started with my take on Saddleback church, etc…..but I will commend Holly on an outstanding post!!
Wow, that was just amazing. Thank you thank you thank you.
Holly, thank you! I am crushed that my favorite singer (for the last 20 years), who is so smart and so witty, has been so easily suckered. So Warren talked the talk for a few minutes with Melissa and gave her a big hug, and we’re all supposed to melt. Fuck that noise. Warren’s actions betray his true beliefs, and she should’ve had the stones to call him on it. Why not? Any of us would. Tammy’s blog entry made me want to kick someone. Her. (And “yamaka”? Really?)
Nice work, Holly.
I’m not harsh on Melissa.
Guys like Rick Warren’s meal ticket is precisely based on charming people like Melissa Etheridge and Barack Obama. Rasputin would be the most extreme example of this phenomenon. If con men couldn’t con, there wouldn’t be confidence games.
Excellent post. Thank you for this.
They weren’t snowed by Warren. They were snowed by Obama who has given Warren the Presidential seal of approval and an international forum. They’re just following Obama’s lead on this. Put the blame where it belongs: on the President-elect who has legitimized and honored a sexist, homophobic bigot. Every day you move the focus elsewhere is another day that Obama’s feet are not held to the fire and is another day that passes with no hope of equality for gays and lesbians and women in this country.
Don’t blame the victims. Blame the victimizers and the primary victimizer is Obama.
I clicked over to the Etheridge piece, and I read: “I hadn’t heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this.”
Then why, pray tell, are we READING this, from someone so politically uninformed that she never heard of Rick Warren? Hello?! Just because she is fucking famous?
Is that IT?
I don’t like it when clueless straight celebrities decide to butt in and pontificate about stuff they clearly haven’t been following, and it is no more acceptable when clueless gay celebs do it too. Being a celebrity does not make you smart or well-informed. All I can think of, is how many great gay bloggers could have been featured at HuffPo, but instead, we get this half-baked nonsense. OF COURSE Pastor Rick will “reach out” to a rich celebrity he hopes will donate to his rich celebrity church. Duh! Does he reach out to regular gay people? Why does it take some rich gay celebrity to open his ears? CMON PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
PT Barnum, call your office.
And: Great post, Holly.
That’s funny, Emma — if you read Tammy’s blog, she expresses a lot of frustration and disappointment and outrage in Obama, just like a lot of the rest of us have for being expendably cast aside by this decision. Then her wife met with Pastor Rick, she saw him give her a big hug, and suddenly everything’s much more OK. I don’t think Obama had anything to do with that change in attitude. Warren charmed them, the presidential approval wasn’t really convincing them (at least not Tammy) any more than it was most pissed-off queers.
[...] of Feministe has a nice post on Rick Warren: You were just hustled by a member of one of America’s oldest fraternities of snake-oil salesmen: [...]
Shah8: Guys like Rick Warren’s job is to be charming, but that doesn’t make him magical. Yes, con men are reprehensible and wholly responsible for their own behavior, but one of the common denominators of all cons is that people are targeted for reasons. If a con is to be successful then the target needs to have some motivation to believe what is being sold. Sometimes that motivation is foolishness, sometimes its devotion to a cause, often times its greed, but even the most skilled of con men cannot con everyone. Etheridge is in a business full of skilled con men (and, to be honest, as an entertainer is something of one herself); she’s been successful long enough that perhaps her manager fields most of them, but I’d still expect her to be a bit more savvy then to get sucked in by a second rate barker like Warren. I mean, have you ever actually seen Warren in action? He’s Ron Popeil with a religious schtick.
I don’t think that Rick warren is a slick talking salesman. He just holds many different opinions and tends to voice the most favorable opinions of the people he is around.
He just doesn’t have a strong or coherent belief system like the fire and brimstone people who came before.
He probably really does believe that. He just believes the other stuff too. Logical coherence is something that one has to work towards maintaining.
Correct me if I’m wrong but Rick Warren and his ilk want SSM banned because it normalizes sinful behavior that sends the practitioners to Hell. It also allows sinners to raise children who will be taught that this sin is acceptable, possibly even normal and, in being normal, may create an environment in which children raised by these sinners may also engage in the same sin – right?
Rick Warren and those of his ilk also believe that Jews, Muslims and all other non-Christians are committing a mortal sin by not accepting Jesus as their savior. This sin, like homosexuality, forces G-d to condemn these people to Hell.. Allowing non-Christians to marry on another normalizes not being Christian and makes it acceptable to reject Jesus; worse yet, people raise children in these relationships that are taught not only that it is OK to reject Christianity, they may actually taught that their non-Christian ideals and beliefs are equal or superior to Christianity leading them to think it’s OK to practice this non-Christian religion (or atheism) themselves and continue perpetuating this heinous cycle.
Since this is his sincere belief and he claims his stance on SSM has nothing to do with homophobic tendencies or any personal dislike of gay people, why isn’t he making a stand to ban marriage between non-Christians?
This is a fantastic response to Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn. I was absolutely furious when I read Etheridge’s post and, too, thought she had been completely bamboozled. He flattered her by saying he liked her albums and then convinced her to believe that he’s not a completely bigoted homophobe by making her believe that he liked her. But those two things do not equate. It’s very easy for someone to say they like one gay person to that person’s face in private, but a completely different thing for him to be able to “love” gay people in general and embrace homosexuality and LGBTQ equal rights in public and in the eyes of his church. If he goes to his congregation on Sunday and preaches that they should accept and love their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters without judgment, then I might start believing his contrition.
And not only is it infuriating that Etheridge and Michaels fell for this bull, but to then come out to the gay community and say, “Oh no. He loves us. Don’t worry. Don’t be so angry. Let’s reach out to him in a gesture of good faith” — that’s just insulting. Etheridge has let herself become a token figure (now she’s the “gay friend” a bigot like Warren can bandy about when he makes statements like “I don’t hate gays; I have lots of gay friends!”
Holly, thank you for this. I’ve all ready had to endure the whole “Look, Melissa Etheridge likes him! Stop spreading hate!” gambit. Also, thank you for continuing to point out that this is not mere “friendly disagreement”. He’s compared consensual adult relationships to pedophilia, incest and murder. He supports attempts in Nigeria to criminalize homosexual behavior and punish it with prison time. He compares pro-choice people to Nazis. He insists that a woman’s proper place in life is to be submissive to a man. Pointing these things out is NOT hateful and neither is opposing him or opposing Obama’s judgment in choosing him to deliver the invocation.
Dear Melissa and Tammy: You best wise up fast and stop sucking up to these extremists, or someone might think you’re kapos.
And Tammy: Learn to spell the word: It’s yarmalke, not “yamaka”.
Excellent write-up!
However, we should also be honestly outraged and express that outrage, because that’s part of the job of keeping the left wing as honest as possible — which if we’re lucky, is more honest than the right wing possibly could be.
It should also be part of the job of convincing Obama that this is a bad decision, right? I mean he does listen to the people who voted for him? The ones who put him in office and repudiated nearly 30 years of hard right Republicanism? Because it would be a shame if he turned a deaf ear to them and went along with his plan to pay lip service to their principles while standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican party. He’s already centrist, let’s not let him be center-right like the rest of the Democratic party.
Melissa tries selling Christmas albums (which she just HAD to mention)… Rick tries selling books. This was free press for both of them. It is sad. They are more alike as merchants than anything else. Melissa should be embarassed about how transparent she is being.
Good for calling her on it, Holly.
Poor Melissa and Tammy. They’ll be so shocked and hurt when they get thrown under the bus like the rest of us. Nobody ever believes they’ll wind up under the tires…until they’re covered in treadmarks.
Hey, all you straight folk on here posting that Melissa and Tammy aren’t doing teh Gay correctly – kindly fuck off.
If you’re an ally, stick to the pricks that are spewing the hate.
hey, weejit, just to clarify, I’m gay. Do you really know who amongst the commenters are straight or gay?
Some of them, yes. Daisydeadhead and judy brown are two examples. Nice gay bashing there (yeah, I’m thinking if we all just gave the queers some money, homophobia would just melt away)
So what if Etheridge didn’t get her reaction to Warren up to par with the rest of the internet PC crowd? She’s done more to bust down the closet doors in the US than any ally that posts here or elsewhere.
Criticize Warren all you want, but when you decide to lash out at one of the most politicized lesbian entertainers (hell, gay entertainers) that we’ve EVER seen, then you need to back up and figure out what you’re really trying to say. And if you are straight, and somehow imply that Etheridge’s “privilege” puts her on par as bigoted asswipes like Warren? Well you can properly take care of yourself (maybe in a nice coat closet, without a light).
I, for one, am sick of seeing the thinly disguised homophobia that’s coming out of the trans, black, and progressive arenas. And I’m sick of the allies that are too naive to catch on to it. If you can’t figure out how to fight with and for us, then you need to just sit down and shut up.
That’s precisely what makes him such a slick-talking salesman. The best salespeople can wholeheartedly believe whatever they’re selling at the moment, and then change up the pitch depending on who’s listening. What ails you, my friend? Pain in your feet? Why, this tincture was specially designed to cure foot pain of all sorts, just spread it on your aching soles. Oh, ma’am, you say your child is misbehaving? Why, my own sister had a very similar problem, so I can sympathize. Just give two teaspoons of this tincture to your kid before bedtime and you’ll have a charming little brat in no time, yes indeed…
Poor, ridiculous Tammy Lynn. It doesn’t take a top-shelf intellect to marry wealth and fame, eh? And how is it that “Honey” can be so…naive, after so many years in the music business? It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
“Yamaka,” indeed.
Weejit, I read those comments as saying that Warren was swayed into meeting and sweet-talking Etheridge because of her celebrity status, and maybe her wealth (although that seems like a slightly more dubious possibility to me — there are plenty of gays with money who I’m sure wouldn’t get the time of day).
But Etheridge certainly got a different kind of welcome from Warren than he gave to the eight gay families that came to meet with him at his church six months ago. Another hug, sure, but a very different temperature of shoulder. Etheridge should realize that; any celebrity ought to, gay or straight. But she sincerely seems to think that someone might not be a homophobe if they say they own all her records and are a big fan.
I’m perfectly aware of the barriers Melissa Etheridge has broken down; “Come to My Window” was huge when I was a senior in high school and meant a lot to me and plenty of other queer kids. (Jeez, that was a long time ago.) I am normally a lot more mean in my “what the hell?” posts than I was to her, because I think she’s sincere, she wants to move beyond lines drawn in the sand, and she’s a wholehearted activist for gay rights. But this time, she still deserves some “what? really, melissa? really? you fell for that?” And I don’t think that has to do with her being gay.
Well, now….
Juan Cole, no idiot, agrees with Ethridge. Warren apologized for his earlier obnoxious statements and had them removed from his web site.
I think you may be shooting at a moving target. It’s possible that Obama invited the preacher because he regards him as educable. Whatever the reason, the invitation was politically astute. Like a good basketball player, Obama knows he has to play defense. Warren’s invocation will make it much harder for other evangelicals to demonize Obama, and less demonization from that potentially dangerous, well-armed quarter will be most welcome. All accomplished by making a small gesture without sacrificing any policy goals.
We’ll just have to see what he continues to say in public. His last public pronouncements were quite homophobic. I doubt he’d get away with something so rude as an invocation, but I doubt we’ll really see Warren moving his position either. I agree that maybe it’s politically smart for Obama to keep a pet evangelical around, but come on — it’s like keeping a pet snake around. A snake that you already know bites people when it thinks nobody’s looking. Plus, you have a bunch of friends who are recovering from snakebite and really don’t like snakes. Am I right? As other political commentators have pointed out, it’s not really a “no-risk maneuever” even if it can be defended as politically savvy.
However, I don’t really think anyone should “trust” a presidential administration anyway, the very idea is sort of ridiculous, so this may just be a good lesson.
Holly,
Very thought provoking post and more importantly, a great observation. No one changes in a day. It wasn’t until the LGBT community started protesting Rick Warrens participation in the inauguration that he removed some very anti-gay wording from his website.
THANK YOU!
Yeah, I got where you were coming from Holly. And I agree, for the most part (I’m not quite as “mean” as you). But lately there’s a thin line running through a lot of blog posts/comments around queer issues that crosses over the grey and into the black of unchecked queer bashing.
Should a wealthy, upfront gay persona be less guillable and more able to recognize relative privilege? Sure, in a perfect world. But likewise, we could put ourselves in her shoes, the dyke ones, the middle aged dyke ones, and realize just how tempting “hope” is after a lifetime of fighting bigots. I remember her decision to come out, and everything that preceded it. No one else was out, except kd lang, not even Sir Elton John, and even the Indigo Girls were just “rumored” to be lesbians. She went out on a plank and jumped, pretty much alone. I could see how she would be seduced by empty prattling, especially if it’s wrapped in shades of hope and unity.
“All accomplished by making a small gesture without sacrificing any policy goals.”
Except for those small civil rights goals, right?
Weejit, I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that Melissa Etheridge doesn’t have a chrome-plated heart. She’s had a long, lonely road, with no gurarantee, and she can’t be blamed for occasionally feeling like she is the only one.
This pretty quickly becomes an excuse for stopping political consciousness with you, though. Everyone who’s ever suffered prejudice will have a civil-rights struggle closest to their heart–and will also have to grapple with problems that are distant from their lives, that may even seem like distractions from their central issues. Melissa’s no exception to that, but she shouldn’t be exempt from the response to it. She’s accepted a position of national prominence, and just used it to endorse a political course of action; she can’t expect to be treated like anything but a spokesperson.
And there is–always has been, but between SPLENDA and Prop 8 and this invocation thing, it seems more stark lately–a disjunct between the leadership and the rank and file. Most of us will never be in a position to hug Rick Warren, or to forgive him. Her tiny comfort is pretty cold to us.
“Most of us will never be in a position to hug Rick Warren, or to forgive him. Her tiny comfort is pretty cold to us.”
But it isn’t cold to us because she found some comfort; it’s cold to us because asshat Warren is still asshat Warren. Or do we need her to take on his sins, as it were?
[...] it not be said that we disparage counterpoint. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Why Your World Matters and Then Doesn’tMe [...]
I pretty much agree with Holly at 33.
My main problem with this situation is that I’m pretty sure both Obama and Etheridge are pretty cynical, and their schemes are relatively tactical. I believe that in large degree, they make routine alliances of convenience with racist, sexist, homophobic people–I remember Obama’s work with Coburn, for instance.
Con men and women know how to work the angle. Good ones figure out what your weak point is and exploit that angle for all its worth. We all have weak spots and all of us can be conned into some pretty unbelievable things that look that way under cold flourescent lights. I once read a book that Don Imus wrote with some credulty that I can’t believe I had as a teen.
My primary concern is that I’m not sure Obama realizes the extent to which Warren *is* a conman, and much closer to a religious charlatan than evangelical anything. Conmen work their mark(s). Warren will try to use that spotlight to worm closer into Obama’s circle–his friends and subordinates if not Obama himself. Given that almost all conmen are opportunistic, and require some element of chaos to work their magic, I’m afraid that Warren will cause a crisis right when Obama has his attention elsewheres.
I knew for sure that he was a conman, who’s conning homophobic folks btw, when he backed out of meeting with gay groups. Honestly homophobic people would either have never agreed, or went ahead and have a civil meeting. It’s like how I, as a black person, am much more comfortable with honest racists than mushy wanna be fair people who are racists when it’s suitably covered up for public consumption.
“35. Except for those small civil rights goals, right?”
What civil rights goals have been sacrificed? Can you list them? Obama himself wasn’t in favor of gay marriage in the first place.
Tactical skill ≠ cynicism.
Whoever said that politicians shouldn’t be trusted was right–but I think we can give O the benefit of the doubt at least until January 21, when he actually starts running the joint!!!!!
I think theres a slight difference though. It isn’t that slick talking salesmen have a mushy core. Its that they have no core. They can sell anything. Whereas I think people like Warren are caught between two belief systems and just live with the intellectual dishonesty.
Warren is different precisely because he isn’t the slick talking televangelist out to make a buck. He really does give away 90% of his proceeds from his book.
Warren probably really will be useful to obama on a few issues whereas any other rightwing jerk would just stab Obama in the back and call for lower taxes. The more conservative people genuinely dislike his version of christanity that calls for helping people.
But at the same time even Obama knows that Warren isn’t a true ally in the sense of sharing a majority of goals.
What I am trying to get across is that I think its a bit more complicated than the idea that he is just a slick talking salesman.
I’m still torn on this issue, and I have nothing to contribute directly to the subject, but I can say that this sort of reaching out was typical of civil rights struggles past. Perhaps on a smaller scale, but it came both from leaders like MLK and politicians like LBJ. LBJ did much of his work in the Senate precisely by putting a neutral spotlight on the actions of the people he disagreed with. That spotlight gave the non-violence movement the opportunity to show just how wrong and awful all the backwards racists were. I’d like to hope this is what Obama is doing, but I’ll not hold my breath.
Surely history has something to teach us.
But it isn’t cold to us because she found some comfort; it’s cold to us because asshat Warren is still asshat Warren. Or do we need her to take on his sins, as it were?
It’s cold comfort because his willingness to play nice with some very influential, relatively palatable queers has no effect on his behavior towards most of them. It isn’t that she needs to take on his sins–as it were–but that she needs to be cognizant of the big picture, to think of people besides herself. Especially when she’s telling them what to think.
Her ability to delude herself into a happier place indicates some distance from the conflicts that asshat helps to make more bitter and more painful for people who aren’t useful to his public image. He isn’t succeeding with her because he’s willing to offer her the unconditional pastoral affection she’s been starved for all her life. It’s because she’s gotten beyond the people he incites. She’s not fragile. She’s sheltered.
I’m with piny–it’s cold comfort that Warren was nice to one couple once, regardless of his motives. The stuff I read–and I saw the whole post in context, not just here–made me really tired. If Warren’s such a nice guy, he needs to put his money where his mouth is. If not, then he’s a massive hypocrite, and I feel bad that Melissa and Tammy got taken in.
“What civil rights goals have been sacrificed? Can you list them? Obama himself wasn’t in favor of gay marriage in the first place.”
?? Are you that clueless?? How about housing and employment protection? Those are always good rights to support. I know Obama’s stance on gay marriage and queers who prosyletize; regardless, if he can’t work towards our global civil rights, we need to frame him for the bigot he is and not give him a free pass for his “policy goals”.
Piny:
“Her ability to delude herself into a happier place indicates some distance from the conflicts that asshat helps to make more bitter and more painful for people who aren’t useful to his public image. He isn’t succeeding with her because he’s willing to offer her the unconditional pastoral affection she’s been starved for all her life. It’s because she’s gotten beyond the people he incites. She’s not fragile. She’s sheltered.”
I’m really uncomfortable with the popular framing of “privileged” queers that has become increasingly visible since that Prop 8 shite went down. M.E. might not be sheltered or fragile, but she still does not have a guarantee of full civil rights and liberties that straight folk are born into. Framing her as some sort of giant, looming over the huddled masses of underprivileged queers, makes this a hierarchical issue, implying that that magnitude of suffering is what will sway the civil rights issue.
Am I saying that M.E. should get a pass for being naive? Yes, I am. (lol, pun intended, if that’s considered a pun). She’s not the issue; nor is her relative privilege, vis-a-vis any concept of more acceptably suffering queers. The issue is Obama, the issue is Warren. Hell, the issue is also all the progressives out there that see Obama as the light of hope and change, who are willing to forget that we don’t have civil rights. THAT is a huge issue. Larger, I would say, than M.E. misinterpreting Warren’s overtures.
Am I saying that M.E. should get a pass for being naive? Yes, I am. (lol, pun intended, if that’s considered a pun). She’s not the issue; nor is her relative privilege, vis-a-vis any concept of more acceptably suffering queers. The issue is Obama, the issue is Warren. Hell, the issue is also all the progressives out there that see Obama as the light of hope and change, who are willing to forget that we don’t have civil rights. THAT is a huge issue. Larger, I would say, than M.E. misinterpreting Warren’s overtures.
Absolutely. I also agree with your calling attacks on Etheridge for what they so often are: homophobia masquerading as alliance. I would add to that: misogyny.
Obama hasn’t come in for a tenth, a hundredth, of the vitriol flung at Etheridge. Etheridge is naive and privileged and stupid and deluded for talking to a vicious homophobe. Obama is a canny politician for giving a vicious homophobe and misogynist an international forum and the presidential seal of approval.
On the scale of who’s f’d me more, I have to go with Obama. Etheridge is a sideshow. A useful sideshow for Obama as she’s being used to detract from his own bigotry in giving Warren the honor of speaking at the inauguration.
That’s funny, Emma — if you read Tammy’s blog,
I don’t. Because while I admire Melissa Etheridge greatly for coming out in the very many ways she has and continues to do, she’s not a politician nor is her spouse. Neither of them is setting policy for this country, neither of them has been invited to speak at the inauguration, neither of them serves in our government, neither of them is being identified as an advisor to the president-elect.
So, if the point of this is “keeping the left wing as honest as possible,” Etheridge and her spouse are immaterial and rants at and about them are useless. If we’re to keep anybody as honest as possible, I suggest that the best and most useful efforts will always be directed at those who are in political power and those who are being handed political power — like Obama and Warren. But what we in fact get is apologia after apologia for the authors’ Obama-love despite Obama’s indefensible bigotry, or at the very least indefensible promotion of bigotry.
Of course, if the idea is to publicly attack Etheridge and her spouse for not being as smart, ideologically pure, poltically savvy, and underprivileged as the denizens of this blog — well, at least you’re doing that right. Congratulations on completely missing the point of what the organized “left wing” should be for.
Obama gets every excuse in the book. Etheridge gets abuse and hate. That doesn’t strike me as keeping anybody “honest”, much less the purveyors of excuses and hate.
I’m not sure I agree with your first sentence, but that’s just because I don’t believe real political change will ever come from the top down. As for your second sentence, I don’t know if you are referring to me by “the authors’,” but I’ve never professed any love for Obama, in this post or others, and that has nothing to do with whether he’s invited homophobic, misogynist pastors to his parties or not. I’m also not interested in “ranting” at the Etheridges, for reasons that I think I made abundantly clear throughout this whole page.
I didn’t say change comes from the top down. I said change comes from the grassroots applying pressure to the top — not to A-List celebrities and their spouses.
FYI, apologias for Obama look exactly like this:
and it’s simultaneously our task to keep in mind that of course a presidential administration is going to have to shake the KKK’s hand or whatever, it’s part of the job.
Really? Name the last president that met with the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
We shouldn’t be surprised when the president expediently flips the bird to a chunk of his base; that’s part of what presidents do,
Really? Name the chunk of his base that Bush flipped the bird to.
You have an odd way of being “not interested” in ranting at Etheridge and her spouse. Where’s your 5,000 word post taking Obama to task for inviting Warren to bless the anaguruation. Oh. That’s right. There isn’t one. But since pressure on politicians is useless — let’s yell at celebrities! Yay for the effectiveness of grassroots organizing, I guess.
Holly and Judy Brown I’m with you.
Tammy and Melissa=naive but then as Judy sorta said: rich, white, celebrity=no idea of the real world.
Ellen, I have to disagree, Tammy and Melissa have heaps of potential influence.. The mere fact that Melissa is out and married to Tammy is political & consequently influential..and therefore thank you Holly for taking the time and energy to write on this very important topic.
Obama, Warren and now the Etheridges will bear watching. But then I was watching Obama with distrust before the election was final.
The entire ‘marriage’ debate is political. If it weren’t for the 1200 rights I wouldn’t support marriage for gays because I see it as just buying into the heteronormative paradigm. That is not revolutionary but for the sake of the kids of gay couples its worth fighting for.
Emma
The chunk of his base that Bush flipped the bird to? How about far right christians who don’t give a damn about global warming because they’re all waiting for the rapture anyway and then the 2nd coming of christ who will miraculously restore the earth to pristine condition.
It was only in his final days as Pres. when it doesn’t matter anymore that he started to say anything about recognizing global warming.
Oh yeah and then there was all the support for ‘so-called intelligent design theory’ as a subterfuge for supporting religion in schools.
It was only in his final days as Pres. when it doesn’t matter anymore that he started to say anything about recognizing global warming.
Oh yeah and then there was all the support for ’so-called intelligent design theory’ as a subterfuge for supporting religion in schools.
“Flipping the bird” is not defined as “pandering to, to the detriment of everybody who is not a far right christian”.
Also, “potential influence” is not the same as “political power”, the latter which is being given to Rick Warren in wheelbarow loads by Obama.
rich, white, celebrity=no idea of the real world.
Is white a prerequisite to being clueless about the “real world”? It’s amazing to me how often white is inserted as code for stupid, clueless, and unconcerned with reality when, in reality, it means no such thing. One could of course say about Obama: “rich, black, celebity=no idea of the real world” and be equally accurate.
Etheridge wasn’t, BTW, born a rich celebrity. Although she was born white, a fact which clearly means she’s spent her entire life stupid, clueless, and unconcerned with reality. That is, her lifelong whiteness neatly fills the early gap in cluelessness otherwise left by her only later-acquired rich celebrityhood.
One does wonder what effect Etheridge’s lifelong womanhood and lesbianism would have on the cluelessness created first by her whiteness and later by her rich celebrityhood? One suspects none, since women, in any sexual iteration, are, by definition, clueless bitches. So Etheridge will always be a worthwhile target for “progressive” wrath should she demonstrate any “cluelessness” by daring to have an opinion not given to her by the male dominated “progressive” movement. Neat how that all works, isn’t it?
Now compare: does Obama’s maleness or straightness or lifelong middleclassness and later great wealth somehow make him clueless about “reality”? Oh, no – it doesn’t. His race somehow ensures that he’s always clued in to the real reality of the realness of the real world, even the real reality of the realness of the real world that poor, female, and gays/lesbians occupy. So Obama will always get the benefit of the doubt should his actual actions demonstrate any cluelessness about the real reality of the real world that the people he’s actually fucking over live in. Neat how that all works, isn’t it?
Melissa Etheridge is trying to help the anti-woman homophobe repent for his ways, obviously seeing in him the ability to be sorry. but no one gives her any credit for this. she is a bitch for even talking to him, right? when he went to hug her, she should have spit in his face and said, “fuck no, i’m not signing your damned cd!” he wouldn’t have learned anything from the encounter; in fact his hatred of gays might have been more ingrained, but she would have still been in good with all the faceless internet lesbians that would have done it differently. and THAT is what really matters in the world…