Is Gay Outrage Over Rick Warren Justified? | Newsweek Culture

The Power Of Prayer

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Chris Crain: Leah, we are only deferring that happy day when we win our equality if we are unwilling to find common ground and respectfully engage those with whom we disagree—especially those like Rick Warren who are so influential with so many. We can't get away with "refusing to get into" whether Warren in fact "equated" our relationships to abusive ones. The argument isn't beneath you, Leah, it's in front of you. The whole reason we are having to fight for marriage equality is that most Americans—including most African Americans—agree with Warren about gay marriage and do not view our struggle as analogous to the black civil rights movement.

On that point, your unwillingness to look for common ground again leads you to mischaracterize Warren's views. He did not say he opposed civil unions; he said the Constitution does not guarantee them to us as a civil right. I'm guessing you would actually agree with him on that, and argue the Constitution actually guarantees us full marriage equality. Regardless, gay activists typically argue for civil unions in legislatures, not courtrooms, so Warren's position isn't the end of the discussion. We shouldn't be looking for end points in the discussion; we should be looking for opportunities. Warren very clearly voiced support for many forms of recognition for same-sex couples. Why not reach out to him on that basis, rather than try to exclude him from good society as some sort of extremist?

You and I would agree, I think, that our fight for civil rights is analogous in many ways to the struggle of African Americans. But you would also have to agree that the country is much, much farther along on black civil rights than on gay civil rights. The election of Barack Obama proves that. So instead of trying to leap ahead five or 10 or 15 years and try to exclude our opponents as bigots outside the mainstream, we ought to be looking for common ground, and engaging them respectfully where we disagree—all with the confidence that the public will see we have the stronger position.

Leah McElrath Renna: I need to return to my central point that is not about marriage equality for same-sex couples or any other policy-related issue. The reality is that Rick Warren does not believe that lesbian and gay people exist. In his worldview and spiritual perspective, LGBT individuals are people who choose to engage in sinful, sexually disordered behavior. This worldview is justified by him and others by a narrow, ahistorical and literal interpretation of a very small number of Biblical passages. It is not shared by all religions, nor by all people or denominations within the Christian faith.

As long as LGBT people and our allies continue to allow others to define our very existence as a so-called "social issue,'' we will not succeed in creating a world that is safe for ourselves, our loved ones and our families.

"It's not a sin to be black, but it is a sin to be gay."

At the beginning of the 20th Century there were racists who would have disagreed. That is why there are many people who believe that the general analogy is valid. Not the specifics per se but the general analogy, the fight for equal rights. I would remind you that many people who opposed the civil rights movement (which included the right to interracial marriage) utilized their bibles are the basis for their opposition. The chapters that they quoted may not be the same (although apparently some may be) but the idea of basing civil discrimination on religious beliefs was.

On a side note (actually a main note but separate from the LGBT community making analogies to the civil rights movement.) I understand that many of those who oppose same-sex marriage (especially the African American community) do so on religious grounds. That does not make those valid reasons for the government. That may in fact exclude them as reasons for the government to make laws. Not all religious believers or denominations oppose same sex marriage. It does not matter what the bible may or may not say. The fact that there is not one uniform interpretation of that text is the reason that the government may not accept one (or several) groups??? religious views on the issue. To do so would clearly violate the Establishment Clause. It does not matter if you think that the interpretation of the religious groups that support same-sex marriage is wrong, Their interpretation has equal standing as far as the law is concerned as yours does (which is basically no standing whatsoever). For the government to say that Rick Warren and his followers' view on what the bible means is the correct one would be analogous to making the Church of England the official religion of the US. The beliefs of the masses do not get to determine what is constitutional. As far as the law is concerned (and we are talking civil marriages not religious ones) it does not matter if you think it is sin.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: made_to_love @ 04/08/2009 3:20:35 PM

"there is simply no valid reason that President-elect Obama couldn't have chosen someone to perform the invocation who actually recognizes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as whole and perfect children of God exactly how they are." This is insane, impossible, and wrong. WHAT HAS OUR COUNTRY TURNED INTO?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/22/2009 12:28:13 PM

"It's not a sin to be black, but it is a sin to be gay."

At the beginning of the 20th Century there were racists who would have disagreed. That is why there are many people who believe that the general analogy is valid. Not the specifics per se but the general analogy, the fight for equal rights. I would remind you that many people who opposed the civil rights movement (which included the right to interracial marriage) utilized their bibles are the basis for their opposition. The chapters that they quoted may not be the same (although apparently some may be) but the idea of basing civil discrimination on religious beliefs was.

On a side note (actually a main note but separate from the LGBT community making analogies to the civil rights movement.) I understand that many of those who oppose same-sex marriage (especially the African American community) do so on religious grounds. That does not make those valid reasons for the government. That may in fact exclude them as reasons for the government to make laws. Not all religious believers or denominations oppose same sex marriage. It does not matter what the bible may or may not say. The fact that there is not one uniform interpretation of that text is the reason that the government may not accept one (or several) groups??? religious views on the issue. To do so would clearly violate the Establishment Clause. It does not matter if you think that the interpretation of the religious groups that support same-sex marriage is wrong, Their interpretation has equal standing as far as the law is concerned as yours does (which is basically no standing whatsoever). For the government to say that Rick Warren and his followers' view on what the bible means is the correct one would be analogous to making the Church of England the official religion of the US. The beliefs of the masses do not get to determine what is constitutional. As far as the law is concerned (and we are talking civil marriages not religious ones) it does not matter if you think it is sin.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/21/2009 6:41:45 PM

Vern,

I take it that you meant to direct that to 2ACLSR53 not to me.