It is pretty obvious to anyone how I feel about Rick Warren being chosen to deliver the blessing on inauguration day. Warren is a unabashed bigot draped in religious clothing who hates the entire LGBT community. And let's be clear, he doesn't just disagree with our "issues", he hates our very existence.
His participation in this day in history is being written off as a sign of Obama's inclusion of all viewpoints, the fulfillment of his campaign promise to give everyone a seat at the table.
But should "inclusion" really include everyone? Or is this really about society's view that hating the LGBT community is simply an acceptable political viewpoint and not bigotry, pure and simple.
Let's make sure we draw distinctions here. Opposing same-sex marriage could be considered a "political view." Some people in our own community oppose it for various reasons. The same could be said about opposing hate crimes legislation- some feel harsher sentences are not the answer to the problem. While these may be different viewpoints from mine, they are issues in a larger debate.
Warren goes beyond that, though. He and his ilk think that LGBT people should not exist. He equates us to rapists, pedophiles, and sexual deviants. He wants to tear apart our families. He supports us being "converted" from who we are or simply wiped out completely. He thinks we don't have a place in society.
It should, because that's not a political view- that's bigotry. If he was saying that any other groups had no right to exists, say African-Americans or Jews, he would be called an extremist or terrorist and drummed out of the political process. So why is he being elevated to national pastor on inauguration day?
Because homophobia and transphobia are acceptable forms of hate in our society.
You can bet if he were a raging racist or anti-semite, there wouldn't be calls for "inclusion." But because it is just the LGBT community he's hating, it's a "valid" political viewpoint. Why do we have to sanction and condone one kind of hate. Why does anti-LGBT bias have a seat at the table as acceptable while other types do not?
Even some in our own community has accepted that this is simply a "political" difference. Read some of the comments on any of the Warren posts and you'll see people agreeing that while Warren's views may be repugnant, it is simply Obama opening his arms to different people. He's being inclusive. Would these people be saying the same thing if it was a neo-nazi asked to give the blessing? Hardly.
But we've been trained and conditioned to view even our own existence as a political movement, where if someone disagrees we should just suck it up. Why is that?
Warren may wrap himself and his hate in religion, but that certainly shouldn't make it valid. Racists used (and continue to use) the bible and religion to justify their views, as do anti-semites. Why do we think these religious fanatics should be pushed aside, yet people like Warren are considered acceptable? I fail to see the difference.
Maybe that's really what this choice has made crystal clear to me- hating us is simply acceptable. Our very existence is something we should "disagree on without being disagreeable."
That's one point of view I don't want to be included on.