Inequality is dead. Long live inequality!

by Malinda Lo on December 20, 2008

The past few days have been bitter for a lot of LGBT people who supported Obama, as well as for progressive straight people. The other night on The Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow succinctly took us through the timeline of the entire Obama-Warren-inauguration-debacle and clearly outlined why it is such a slap in the face to LGBT people. (This is 13 minutes long, but I think it’s worth it.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I was truly infuriated when I first found out that a homophobic, anti-choice, conservative Christian pastor was going to be speaking at the inauguration of a man who was voted into office because he promised to be a (somewhat) progressive change-maker. Instead, we get more of the same — the granting of a presidential seal of approval to a bigot.

Obama made a big mistake by inviting Rick Warren to his inauguration. It’s not the straw that broke the camel’s back; our back was already nearly crushed by the passage of Prop. 8. That was a gigantic, blaring wake-up call to LGBT people, forcing us to realize that a slim majority of Americans can quickly and easily take away our civil rights. Now that we have struggled to rise up again, does Obama really think we’re going to roll over and take it?

What the Warren invitation means is that inequality and discrimination is still acceptable — as long as it’s directed at LGBT people. We may have known this before, but this has pounded it home with a sledgehammer. It’s still OK to be homophobic in this country; otherwise, why would a known homophobe be invited to speak at Obama’s inauguration?

It appears that even Obama, who knows a thing or two about discrimination, doesn’t understand that an invitation to Rick Warren means that he is condoning discrimination against LGBT people. No, he thinks it’s just about a disagreement.

What that means is that our battle for equality is far from over. If our leaders still don’t recognize homophobia when it is rampant in their faces, we must explain it to them. I have no idea how, but that one thing is clear to me: Our leaders can’t champion our rights if they don’t even understand that they are taking ours away.

While I recognize and empathize with all the anger and dismay that has erupted in the wake of Obama’s decision, I think that once we have vented and fumed as much as we want, it’s time to figure out how to connect with the straight people who don’t get it. I have never been an activist, and I don’t know how to do this. But I’m willing to try.

Share this:

{ 3 comments }

Sarah in Chicago December 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm: Hey Malinda, very well put … I’ve written to numerous members of the Obama transition and inauguration teams to simply voice my feelings of utter betrayal on this. This is the letter I sent:

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my extreme disgust, and feelings of betrayal that have me almost in tears, in hearing the appointment of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration of President-Elect Obama in January.

I can remember sitting with my girlfriend, as she and I watched Obama’s acceptance speech on our couch, late into the night. We were thinking, that just maybe, just maybe, we had someone in the ultimate position in this country that could give us our rights, that would not think that giving credence to those that advocate for us to have less rights, like Rick Warren does, is the right thing to do somehow.

But no, apparently PE Obama feels the same as previous politicians have; that our rights are merely a political viewpoint.

This isn’t a matter of putting someone up that we disagree with, this isn’t a difference of opinion. I have friends who I wonderfully disagree with on a range of issues.

Rather, This is someone that believes me and those I love and care for, do not deserve the same rights he enjoys. This is someone who compares my acts of love to some of the most despicable human behaviour. This is someone that actively wants to get his religious bigotries enshrined in law and the constitution. This is someone that thinks that he should decide my reproductive choices. This is someone who thinks I am less than him.

The pro-choice position does not force anyone to get an abortion who does not want one; the anti-choice position, however, prevents women who want abortions from getting them. The pro-marriage equality position does not force anyone to marry a person of the same sex, nor require that any churches perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; the anti-marriage equality position, however, prevents same-sex couples who want to get married from doing so and prevents churches who want to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies from doing so.

The progressive position allows for individual choice; the conservative position does not. The progressive position expands freedom; the conservative position limits it. The progressive position treats women and LGBTQIs as autonomous, rights-bearing human beings deserving of full equality; the conservative position treats women’s bodies as state property and LGBTQIs as second-class citizens.

These are not two sides of the same coin. One advocates for equal rights, the other says those equal rights are “special rights”. I am not arguing to take the rights of anyone away.

Sure, we need to bring all viewpoints to the table, so that as many people in the country can have a say and discuss issues together. But this inaugural invocation is not doing that. This is validating a man that says I am less equal than him because the person I am with is a woman.

You will get no more donations from me, nor support, nor effort, unless you change your mind on this.

I cannot begin to describe how much you have hurt and betrayed me in doing this. For a moment there, I believed.

No more.

yours,
Sarah [last name redacted here]

I’ve also written on my blog about this a couple times … what with this, the HHS Rule Change, the pushing in CA by the Prop H8 bigots to annul existing same-sex marriage licenses, and the US alone amongst western nations in not signing the UN declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalisation of homosexuality, it’s been a really bloody awful week.

Reply
nicola griffith December 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm: After some searching, I found a way to view this that makes it sting a little less–for me, anyway.
http://asknicola.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-is-obama-thinking.html.

Reply
Rebecca Chekouras December 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm: When I first heard of Obama’s choice of Warren, I tried to filter it through this question: If you wanted to change the view of evangelicals about LGBT rights, who would you reach out to? People who already think the way you do, or the leader of one of the largest flocks? I think now I was still in shock. Let Obama invite Warren to dinner at the White House, but not the invocation at the inauguration.

Reply