Memphis Roundup: Outrage at Warren and predictions of GLBT rights law

Since Jonathan is away (hopefully getting a much deserved break), I thought I would blog these two pieces from the Memphis papers.

First, one of the twenty questions asked by the Memphis Flyer includes thoughts on whether Memphis will pass a nondiscrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. They talked to Jonathan about this a couple of weeks ago:

The beating brought the lack of a nondiscrimination ordinance to light once again. Jonathan Cole of the Tennessee Equality Project says pushing for a Memphis ordinance is one of the group's top goals for 2009.

The drafted ordinance will protect city employees, anyone using city services, employees of city contractors, and members of boards appointed by the city (e.g., MLGW, the Center City Commission, etc.). Cole says he's currently working with the City Council's personnel and governmental affairs committee and hopes to see the ordinance on a council agenda in the new year.

Will it pass? It's anybody's guess, but new council members seem more open to gay rights issues. Hopefully, they'll give the green light to this long-overdue ordinance. — Bianca Phillips

Second, we have more on the Rick Warren affair from the Commercial Appeal. In an extensive piece, they interview blogger and activist Jim Maynard, Obama campaign volunteer Shauna Wright, and me. Maynard makes all the salient points:

"I think most gay people are upset about it," said Memphis blogger and gay activist Jim Maynard.

After eight years of anti-gay policy under President Bush, Maynard said, many in the gay community hoped Obama would be a beacon for change.

Maynard hasn't given up that hope.

Inviting Warren to give a prayer is not the same as setting policy, he said.

Christophobia? Wrong answer, Mr. Warren

Egalia breaks down the latest Rick Warren blunder of suggesting that his detractors suffer from Christophobia. As she points out, "Warren doesn't explain how this fits with the undeniable fact that many of his harshest critics are also Christian."

Let me start by saying, "Right on!"

Yesterday I attended the requiem mass for Eddie Lightsey. It was a mixture of ancient liturgy and hymns you would hear at just about any Southern funeral--Amazing Grace, It is Well with my Soul, etc. The congregation gathered was a mixture of his gay and lesbian friends (some Christian, some Jewish, some of no particular faith tradition), his family, and members of his parish (straight and gay). It was the universal Church and the human family at its best.

Maybe it was the experience of Eddie's funeral that has made me more sensitive to the fact that Warren's efforts to produce a binary opposition between Christianity and the GLBT community are insulting and inaccurate. But it's an old line that he knows will get him somewhere with some audiences. I hear it all the time. I can't tell you how many reporters have interviewed me about a policy issue and asked, "What about the Churches?" And I remind them that those of us involved in the Christian faith take a variety of positions on issues.

The point is not to conflate the two. Religious diversity is as much a part of the GLBT community as any other segment of the community. If there seems to be more of a gap, perhaps that's because the loudest voices in American Christianity have been at the front of the line in opposing our rights. But Warren doesn't speak for Christianity and he doesn't have a broad enough constituency (millions of copies of poorly written books notwithstanding) to say that anyone who disagrees with him is Christophobic.

We're not afraid of Christ, Mr. Warren. We're afraid of the effects of your divisive rhetoric. You would do well to take a page from the president-elect by reaching out more and stop making up fear-based disorders.

Who were you expecting? Gene Robinson maybe?

All Hell has broken loose in GLBT quarters about the choice of Rick Warren to pray at the Inauguration. I completely get and agree with the opposition. I'm surprised by the surprise, though. Barack Obama has been doing a lot of, depending on how you look at it, reconciling with or coopting foes from the campaign. Look at how many of his Democratic primary opponents are going to be in the Administration. While Rick Warren calls Obama a friend, Evangelicals have symbolically represented the other for Democrats for quite some time.

There's a lot of back and forth inside baseball on whether a congressional committee made the decision or whether Obama had the final say even if the committee did suggest Warren. I don't think that's the point.

We have a president-elect who will not be scripted by the divisions in the culture war. For those of us on either side, that's not going to be pleasant. It's going to be a constant effort at interpreting what Obama's choices mean. We may be guessing for quite some time if we try to follow the semiotics of the words and events surrounding him.

Public presentation and rhetoric matter. And I think a president's rhetoric has to try to stretch to include every group. Obama could take the clear and easy road by either picking one side or speaking in such generalities that what he says is meaningless. Instead, he may be charting a new course of simultanteously embracing aspects of the two sides in the culture war. That will provide plenty of occasion for both sides to be insulted.

I admit I'm not quite sure what to make of the pattern that is emerging. And while necessary from the point of view of GLBT advocacy, the condemnations do not begin to explain what is at work in these paradoxical choices that Obama is making.