OK folks, what is your take on this piece by Jamie Kirchick, "The Gay Community Needs to Calm Down About Rick Warren"? A snippet:
The problem for gay activists is that many Americans agree with Rick Warren when it comes to same-sex love. And these people, numbering in the over 100 million range, are not going to be budged in their views by hectoring activists who call them bigots (even though that's what many of them are). Now, I'm of the firm belief that these debates will be moot in 20 years, when the older generation kicks the bucket and the near-universally gay-accepting Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers take the reins of government. Whatever political victories they feel that they've won from Proposition 8 and the other marriage amendments across the country, the anti-gay forces of reaction in this country are gasping their last breath. The honest ones among them acknowledge this, if not publicly. We will hasten the day of gay equality by engaging respectfully with them and winning over the persuadable ones (many of whom, I bet, are followers of Warren), rather than calling them names.
In that vein, gays would do well to store their gunpowder for the truly significant legislative battles that will no doubt be fought in the years ahead. Getting rid of the odious and national security-weakening "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regulation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Matthew Shepard hate crimes law will all be possible over the next four years now that we have a Democratic president and Congress committed - at least on paper - to effecting these positive changes. If gays had given Obama some much-needed slack on Rick Warren, perhaps he'd feel a political debt to us when these truly significant issues come up for debate. But how sincere - or politically threatening - will gay complaints about administration foot-dragging on issues that actually affect millions of gay and lesbian people sound in light of the unwarranted outrage that's been generated over the guy who's going to deliver a two-minute reading that no one will remember? Attacking the President-Elect who campaigned as the most pro-gay candidate in American history over an issue as irrelevant as this one, I fear, makes us look like we're crying wolf. And we all know how that fable ended.
My two cents:
* Why is making note of Warren's past and current statements regarding LGBTs considered an overreaction to this selection? The warm fuzzy image Rick Warren and his PR flacks have carefully cultivated needed some balance, quite frankly. It's pretty clear the MSM wasn't going to say jack about it. The fact that Saddleback's web site was scrubbed tells you Warren and Co. were quite aware that this was blowing up in their faces.
* It's not a zero sum game for activists to both publicly condemn Warren's positions and to be ready to actively work and lobby for passage of pro-LGBT legislation. Multi-tasking is possible, no?
* The Warren selection is relevant because 1) LGBTs worked hard for Obama's election, many the people he is "reaching out" to worked mightily to pass anti-gay legislation; 2) Obama's camp has already been down this path before with the Donnie McClurkin debacle -- how can that not be discussed?