Suicide and Legitimized Homophobia

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 18:24


If you don't understand why it's so wrong to officially validate Rick Warren, read this.  Gay kids learn that being gay is wrong, so they try to stop being attracted to the person of the same sex.  And they fail.  And they have horrible problems until they come to terms with their sexual identity.  It's no wonder that gay teens have higher suicide rates than straight teens.  

Sexual identity is part of who you are.  Period.  Passing hate crimes and anti-discrimination statutes and civil unions laws and the like are not bad actions, but the leader of this country announcing that he does not believe that gay people should have the right to marry their life partner, but straight people do, is pretty awful.  Saying so while preaching tolerance for bigots doesn't actually change my mind on that point.

America has always had a reactionary streak which reflects other peoples' rights as irrelevant or immoral.   There was a morality dressed in Christian garb built up around slavery, denying women the vote and taking land from Native Americans, to pick three obvious examples.  But America also has a strong anti-racist tradition, and this tradition does draw power from the line that 'all men are created equal'.  Well, um.  You get the picture.  Anyway, both can create political power, but you can't throw away the rights of one group without damaging the rights of other groups.  Gay rights and women's rights advance in legal circles, building on each others' precedents.  And I don't think it's a coincidence that America so egregiously kills Iraqis without consequence to its political leaders, and that the same groups that push said decisions (like Rick Warren) are the ones that seek to deny gay people rights.

There is no three dimensional chess here or political calculation that makes sense on this point.  If the argument is that sacrificing the rights of another group on the altar of political power is a reasonable choice, then you should remember that a society that callously denies one group their humanity can just as easily deny you yours.

Matt Stoller :: Suicide and Legitimized Homophobia

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Suicide and Legitimized Homophobia | 51 comments
Wow. Excellent. (4.00 / 5)
Very well said.  And the teen suicide piece is something people choose to ignore or just don't see.  
especially in Mormon communities like Utah and Idaho and Mesa, AZ. (0.00 / 0)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
this is such an important point (4.00 / 6)
Thank you for recognizing it, and for linking the important diary as well.

People who trivialize gay rights because they think it is all about some pre-defined, never-changing group of middle-aged white men in Manhattan annoy me to no end. Gay rights are not about accruing privileges for some finite group of people: they are about telling the next generation growing up (as well as those who have already grown up but who are too scared to be who they are) that they are OK. Sometimes that has life-or-death consequences.

That is why symbols matter.  

I could not agree more (4.00 / 10)
There are many pastors and religious leaders that are leaders on social justice issues. They may even agree with Warren but that has been a private matter of personal beliefs.  Their outspoken work has been for the poor.

 If Obama wanted to dialogue with Warren he could have invited him for lunch at the White House.

Doing the invocation is honoring a man that does not represent mainstream America.  It is insulting to not only to gays but to women as well.  

I have no trouble with dialogue.  I have no trouble with Warren's personal beliefs.  I do have a problem with Obama giving those beliefs a place of honor in the inauguration.

half of the story (4.00 / 6)
This post is absolutely correct that endorsing the views of Warren promotes gay suicide because of the impact it has on gay individuals.

The implication is even broader than that.  Legitimizing discrimination and those who endorse it permits bigots to feel comfortable with their hatred and homophobia, thus entrenching an atmosphere that further breeds stigmatization, alienation and self-loathing.  

I can't tell you how disappointed I am with this decision by the President-elect.  The selection of Warren for the ceremony is something George Bush or Ronald Reagan would have done, not change I can believe in.  

Thank you. (4.00 / 3)
I am sick of seeing people like Warren and Huckabee say with a straight face that they want to make gays second class citizens, but that doesn't make them bigots.

Fuck.That.Shit.

They are bigots, and they need to own it. Moves like this that pretend that these are reasonable people making a good faith argument just legitimizes their hate and ignorance.  

[ Parent ]
San Francisco's Mayor thinks this is an 'opportunity'?? (0.00 / 0)
What is with this new breed of Democrats who continually lower their own standards by cowering under the prejudice and bigotry of those with standards they supposedly abhor?
The Mayor said on Rachel's show that he sees this as an opportunity for what Warren may change his mind?  Hardly.  He's now chest thumping in victory, at a time when many in California and my state of Arizona were reconsidering the harm done by their votes.  

Why is the reverse never true?  In the spirit of Obama's  unity bullshit why didn't he bring in an openly gay Pastor to stand next to Warren on stage with him?  Give both sides the 'honor'.
But no.  He had to publicly demean one side while bending over for the other.  

Wow. I am so saddened and stunned at such a turnabout.

I think we of the Left got pranked, and just put another Republican in the White House.

While Governor Dean and the real Democrats of the party have officially been kicked out to the gutter.



Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
This is actually pretty important to me (0.00 / 0)
Sexual identity is part of who you are.  Period.  Passing hate crimes and anti-discrimination statutes and civil unions laws and the like are not bad actions

This stuff is actually pretty important to me as i am transgendered and gay and I live in a state that has none of those things.

Heres why I am not sympathetic to this argument.  Gay people recently did their best to throw transgendered people under the bus on the ENDA and I supported that.  Sure I criticized them for it, but ultimately they didn't have the votes to do it for transgendered people.  And often people conflate the two so I think that were it to be passed then making an amendment would be a lot easier than if nothing passed.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

A spot for my analogy (0.00 / 0)
Suppose that you had a politician who was considered to be anti-slavery, and certainly was not for expanding it beyond places where it already existed, as Lincoln was. Suppose also that this person chose a minister to speak at the inauguration who was pro-slavery, and had advocated for "Southern institutions" or some such  thing. We would then know that this person did not consider slavery to be morally wrong. This does not mean that the person would not keep any of his campaign promises about slavery, but that the person did not feel it to be such a great evil that he would go beyond these campaign promises. In fact the Bible does not come out and say, "Slavery is wrong". In the American context it was wrong under any context because of its brutality and the hypocrisy of the slaveowners in saying that they were civilizing the slaves.

When my sister got married, it was in Ontario, in other words the outer edge of when this was possible. From this scanty information, I don't think that people are driven to such despair as to want to kill themselves because they can't be married. Plenty of straight people can believe that they won't be married and not think that their lives are over, even if it is a big heartache. But I can imagine that people are driven to this despair because  they know no one who will love and accept them if they say "I'm gay", or their church or parents demonizes gays regularly or thinks that gays are the ultimate symbol of moral decline. In his acceptance speech, Obama had a line about gays. I would imagine that he would react to this firestorm by putting into his inauguration speech another line or two about gays, giving the lonely gay people out there some encouragement. But in the case above, it may be that the lonely gay person does not know anyone who voted for Obama so the encouragement will be very weak.



Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

not just marriage (4.00 / 3)
The issue is not just gay people in despair about being unable to marry.  It's that the symbolic statement of placing Warren in such a position of moral prominence will increase hatred, bigotry and a repressive atmosphere across the board.  

During the 1980s someone made the point that when Reagan, who professed to be against discrimination by race, told stories about welfare queens, he made people feel comfortable with their bigotry.  Presidents should use their power of persuasion to do the opposite, to support those who take the brunt of discrimination, and create an atmosphere where people who hate feel uncomfortable.

Reading Obama's rationalization for his selection (and I supported him) makes me want to throw up.

[ Parent ]
But this is America (4.00 / 1)
Political leaders do not have the power to make anyone listen to religious leaders. Rick Warren is famous enough in his own right that people can have an opinion about him no matter what Obama does. When evangelicals demanded that Republicans pander to them and Republicans did so, they made themselves more hateful in the eyes of non-evangelical folks.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
I have no romance in my soul (0.00 / 0)
No one brought up the Tristan and Isolde situation with relation to this comment.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Agree with all of this (4.00 / 1)
I agree with all of this, Matt.

I do have one caveat, though (of course).  I don't think any of this is as obvious as we pretend.  You lay out the history, well.  Progressives (or liberals, if you prefer) are always on the cutting edge of this stuff.  If it was obvious, it would already be true.

Most people when confronted with the question "is a marriage between a man and a woman" just answer "duh, of course".  That doesn't mean they are bad, it just means they haven't gotten there, yet.  Sometimes these things take a generation as old ways of thinking are well set.

But none of this is to justify Warren; at least not very much.

That point would be stronger (4.00 / 3)
if this was just about gay marriage. Matt's point was that Warren's preachings go well beyond the "between a man and a woman" bit, and into actual gay-hating (or gay correcting if you're on the Ricky side). Do you really buy into the rhetoric about "saving marriage as we know it" as their motive? I can't believe anybody does. Gay marriage is bad because it's bad to be gay. The line is really that simple. You're probably right that some decent people will reply "duh, of course" to your question out of innocence or ignorance. Warren isn't one of them, and you're asking the wrong question. Try something more like "Do you think gays should burn eternally in Hell? Along with prochoicers? And unconverted Jews and other heathens?"

Does it get more obvious then?

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Those actively pushing the negatives get less tolerance than those just going along.

However, my guess is he wouldn't tell you that gays "should" burn in Hell.  I doubt he would even say gays "do" burn in Hell, automatically, at least.  He would probably say homosexuality is a sin.  Everyone who goes to heaven is a sinner, but when you embrace sin as a lifestyle it gets harder.

I used to be a Born Again, I know how the rhetoric works.  The problem is (well, one of many), if you take the Bible literally, they are correct.  To me this eventually proved the Bible is incorrect, but others reach a different conclusion.

[ Parent ]
Among my former relatives (4.00 / 1)
who were (are) fundies, unrepentant sinners do not go to heaven. In the case of gays, you can't continue to live as a gay person and claim to have repented of your "sin". Of course a gay person who gets "converted" or "purged of their sin" by becoming hetero to all appearances can go to heaven. So can Jews who convert to the one true faith. So those who remain gay or Jewish or any of the other abominations "do" go to heaven. Since "god" is the one that makes that happen, surely it "should" happen.

Perhaps Warren is different, but nothing in his rhetoric suggests that that's the case.

PS-- Nobody takes the Bible literally. Nobody. Claiming to do so is just more jihadist propaganda.

[ Parent ]
Don't you mean hell? (0.00 / 0)
The place where unrepentant Jews and gays go according to the Religious Right?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Do they believe in Hell? (0.00 / 0)
I thought the idea was that you just don't get resurrected along with J.C. and all the other Christians at the End of Days Party.  
[ Parent ]
The ones I grew up with did. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not following the question. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, they go to hell. Thought that's what I said. Protestants don't do purgatory or anything. If you don't go the heaven, you go to hell.
[ Parent ]
You said (0.00 / 0)
"So those who remain gay or Jewish or any of the other abominations "do" go to heaven"

I figured it for a typo, since it was the opposite of what you seemed to mean.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.00 / 2)
the reply to your last 3 questions-

"Do you think gays should burn eternally in Hell? Along with prochoicers? And unconverted Jews and other heathens?"

Is, according to Warren, Yes.

[ Parent ]
The N Word (4.00 / 1)
I hesitate to even raise this line of argument, but I feel it must be made.

If discrimination against gays is bigotry-- which it is, and if Obama is including Warren to expand the spectrum of viewpoints, then would he expand them even more and include a preacher who used the N word in his sermons and called for legal discrimination against African-Americans?

I think not.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

I think he would (0.00 / 0)
If this was 1950-1960.  The parallel doesn't hold up today, but it holds up historically.
[ Parent ]
Obama wouldn't be president if this was the (0.00 / 0)
1950s.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
N-word seems like a bad analogy (0.00 / 0)
Unless Warren is known to go around using anti-gay slurs.

Now, as far as the calls for legal discrimination, the analogy is more (though not entirely) apt. I would say that if this were 1964 Obama probably would have a preacher at his inauguration who had spoken out against the Civil Rights Act, yes.  

[ Parent ]
Missed my point (4.00 / 1)
My point is he has someone who is willing to discriminate against gays, but would not have someome who discriminate against blacks.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
Question (4.00 / 1)
Obama is a committed Christian, by all appearances, and even if he weren't, he would need some minister to deliver an invocation.  Wright is pro-gay rights, but how many prominent ministers are available who are not toxic and are solid progressives on abortion and gay marriage?  

In wikipedia, there is a list of progressive Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

I don't know most of these people.  Some, like Martin Luther King, Jr., I presume are unavailable on Jan 20.  Some aren't ordained ministers.  Some are socialists, and hence too controversial.

The larger problem isn't the invocation, or Warren, or Obama, but the generally backwards approach of most of Christianity to sexual issues.  I'm sure someone online has proposed a name that would be just perfect...but I haven't been able to find it.  

It's not rocket science. (4.00 / 2)
Bishop Robinson may be too much to ask, but what's wrong with Dan Schulz?

http://streetprophets.com/

He's even UCC, like Obama.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
He might be fine (0.00 / 0)
I don't know much about his life, or how well he speaks, but he could be a fine choice.
[ Parent ]
Oh, c'mon, let's not meet prejudices w. prejudices. (4.00 / 1)
My church, the Episcopalian church, has as its head Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who has certainly advocated in favor of same sex marriage. Jeebus, when you start relying on wikipedia to provide progressive Christian "data" so that you may blanketly tar an entire relegion...
[ Parent ]
Peace be with you! (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Enlighten me (4.00 / 1)
Show me a better source.  I've looked.

How many Christian churches in America accept homosexuality as not sinful?

Not the Catholics, Adventists, Mormons, Baptists (except for a small minority of about 50 churches), American Reformed, Churches of Christ, American Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians.  The UCC has an official policy of welcoming gays that is adopted by about 10% of the churches.  The Episcopalians are making admirable progress, but it certainly isn't settled or without controversy.

On the other hand, there are the Quakers.

If I'm right about the above, how have I tarred anyone?  Just a quick look into the doctrinal positions of the largest American Christian churches shows they are 80-90% anti-gay.

Jeebus.

[ Parent ]
Trivial (4.00 / 1)
Finding someone who hasn't openly supported bigotry towards gays isn't hard.  Finding someone who actually supports gays rights isn't even hard.  In fact, there are two prayers that night, the second is from someone who very much supports gay rights.
[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
Why does he need some minister to deliver an invocation? Does the presidency really need to be mumbled over by the high priests to hope for success? Are we living in the 15th century?

If that's what they need to do, fine. But it gets tiresome to see the "faith-based" option automatically assumed to be the default.

[ Parent ]
"callously denies one group..." (4.00 / 4)
I'm still not understanding why so many in the blogosphere are emphasizing "one" group. If Rick Warren's comparing abortions to the holocaust, then women and probably Jews ought to perceive a direct threat as well.  
Exactly right (4.00 / 1)
Couldn't agree with more with this post.

I'd only add that anybody who talks about gay marriage as threatening the "sanctity of marriage" can go fuck themselves with a very sharp stick.

The argument is infantile and basically revolves around the idea that homosexuals have cooties, but it annoys me for more than that. It implicitly argues that there is something sacred about an unhappy marriage, and that there's something wrong with those like my girlfriend's parents, who've been together for years but have no intention of getting married.

It's an argument that is based upon the principle that there is only one way to live your life. And rejecting that is half the reason we're here.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Um... (4.00 / 2)
Are we just going to ignore the fact that he's got a pro-gay marriage pastor doing the benediction and an LGBT band in the inaugural parade, neither of which has happened before?
Um...yes (4.00 / 2)
Are you saying that mixed signals on this issue is acceptable?  If a person says or does thing to reduce discrimination it's fine if they do something that increases it?

Intolerant people who are looking to feel comfortable with their bigotry will seize on the mixed message - in fact they'll probably just selectively perceive the Warren appearance - and they won't feel any pressure to change.  

I've supported Obama pretty strongly, but I find this level of apology for his indefensible choice to be really disturbing.  

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
publius probably said this better than I can and in more depth than I care to.

You can absolutely argue about whether this is a good strategy in the long term or whether the long term strategy justifies the short term message this sends, but pretending this is purely and simply a "slap in the face" or Obama throwing progressives and gays under the bus strikes me as a bit over the top.

[ Parent ]
Obama has not been in favor of gay marriage (0.00 / 0)
Nor is any major national political leader, so what's new! Why all the drama about Rick Warren? If you're going to castigate Obama for associating with religious homophobes, then you have to castigate Bill and Hillary Clinton for inviting Billy Graham to give an invocation at his inauguration  and consequently validating his teachings about homophobia also, "pal-ing around with clergy who are opposed to gay marriage" is a capital crime apparently. From this point forward anyone who doesn't favor enactment of gay marriage is hater in your mind. So the entire leadership of the Dem. Party all therefore qualify as a bunch of gay-haters by this criteria. If a Dem. candidate for president has to favor gay marriage then there won't be any Democratic presidents from this time forward until the majority of American people favor gay marriage.
Did you read any of Warren's statements? (4.00 / 2)
He's not just about gay marriage, he's as vicious toward gays as anyone. To be gay is to live in sin, and, by his theocratic principles, to go to eternal damnation. There's a difference between disfavoring gay marriage and gay bashing. This is not a distinction that applies to Warren and his congregants.

As far as Clinton, he's exactly what I hoped not to ever see repeated in a Democratic president. Do you think his cowering triangulation efforts did something to get the godly wingnuts off his back? If Obama thinks this is strategic I wish him luck, but hope he's not counting on reciprocity any time soon.

[ Parent ]
Suicide and Legitimized Homophobia | 51 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox