Rick Warren References Multiple Partners In Laundry List of What is "Natural" but Wrong

If you've seen the news in the last 24 hours you've heard that Barak Obama has picked Rev. Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration, to no small amount of consternation on behalf of GLBTs and others who are vigilantly watching Obama's every move for evidence of inclusiveness. Marriage equality advocates are particularly appalled, due to Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage.

Interestingly, the U.S. News and World Report website says that "Warren, author of the bestselling Purpose-Driven Life and pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., has sought to distance himself from Christian right leaders who frame evangelical political concerns mostly around fighting abortion rights and gay rights. At the same time, Warren opposes gay marriage and gay civil unions and has said that he objects to the homosexual lifestyle."

From a rational point of view, if, as the Time Magazine cover states, Warren is the most powerful evangelical in the country, doesn't it make sense that he would be chosen for such an honor as someone who clearly has the support and esteem of a significant segment of the population? It's a much more sizeable segment than the segment that is made up of we GLBTs. I just have to wonder about how those who seek inclusion can seriously challenge Obama's willingness for being inclusive when they aren't being inclusive of the people Obama includes. Seems kind of hypocritical to me, but don't get me wrong, I'm very supportive of marriage equality. After all, asking Warren to give the inaugural invocation hardly means Obama is in Warren's pocket,and I think it would be a mistake to read too much into this decision.

Maybe it's time to really recognize what Obama means when he promises to be inclusive ... to be a uniter and not a divider, and to be EVERYONE's president. He seems very wise to me to take that approach, and by taking it, yes, occasionally an evangelical who opposes what many of us advocate for on behalf of sexual minority groups is going to show up on the radar.

And all that said, I still have my concerns about Rev. Warren, who specifically spoke about multi-partner marriage in remarks to be aired tonight. This morning the Today Show broadcast a piece of teaser footage of Ann Curry's Dateline NBC interview with Rick Warren to be broadcast this evening. Feisty Ann challenged Warren's position on homosexuality and same sex marriage (one man one woman marriage only, if homosexuality is hard wired it must be resisted ....).

Ann asked: "Many of these gay people want to be married because they want to create families, they want to adopt children, they want to create a family that isn't about multiple partners bur about one."

Warren responded, "For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman, not just Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism ..... Why take that word [marriage]? I even have gay friends like Al Rantel at KABC who is opposed to using the word marriage for a gay relationship. Use another term. I am opposed to marriage being used for a relationship between a sister and a brother. ... For an older man and a baby girl. .... For one man and six wives or one wife and six husbands. God said in Genesis one a man and a woman shall cling to each other for life ....

Warren also recited a laundry list of things that are "natural" to humans but must be resisted as wrong. Unfortunately that clip hasn't been posted by NBC and I can't recall all of it, but he included things like fear and other human emotions that can be problematic. What I heard was him advocating for rejecting our very humanity in the name of self-control. Sounded like horseshit to me. Would love to have your comments if you get to see Dateline tonight.

Marianne Williamson on America's Non-Violent Revolution

OK, so I'm continuing my examination of the outcome of last week's presidential election for a little longer. The following certainly isn't poly-specific, yet I know how much it resonates with the idealists amongst us.

I've been a fan of Marianne Williamson for many years. Her latest blog post on the election of Barak Obama is, as is often true for her, an inspiration that superlatives fail to adequately describe, so as always, I'll leave it to you to judge for yourself. Williamson writes:

In the l960's, we wanted peace but we ourselves were angry. This time, after hearing Gandhi's call that we must be the change we want to see happen in the world, we came to our political efforts with an understanding that we must cast violence from our hearts and minds if we are to cast it from our world; that we must try to love our enemies as well as our friends; and that when a genius of world-historic proportions emerges among us, we cannot and we must not fail to do everything humanly and spiritually possible to support him. For his sake…and for ours.


Having gone to a higher place within ourselves, a higher level of leadership began to emerge among us. A higher level of leader now having emerged among us, he calls us to an even higher place within ourselves. These two forces together can and will, as Obama has said, truly change the world. Having moved one mountain, we'll now remove the ones that remain.

A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Freedom of Relationship Choice

OK, folks, for the next 72 hours or so I'm going to go all political on ya, but I'll do my best to keep it light. If you're a regular reader and you don't want to hear/read it, feel free to move on, but please come back soon! I'll miss you.

Yes, I'm a proud Obama/Biden voter. I believe him to be fair-minded and open-minded. I'm hoping that will translate to at least not actively opposing alternative relationships. He's shown no sign of intention to do so, his unwillingness to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples notwithstanding.

I'm greatly impressed with Barak Obama's intellect and approachable persona. He reminds me so much of Bill Clinton in that regard. Whatever he may lack in long-term Washington experience is to my mind a good thing. He's been a senator long enough to know how things work there, but not long enough to become like so many of the long-timers in Congress, i.e. cynical, jaded, and out of touch.

Like so many others, I'm very tired of the Washington political operative game. Still, I like Joe Biden just fine. I have always believed he is one of the exceptions. He's managed to keep his head on straight and to work the political process to his constituents' advantage, and as a long-time senator he will bring that long-term knowledge of how things work in Washington, as well as his significant foreign policy experience, to the Obama administration.

Considering how the Bush administration has stripped away significant portions of our right to privacy and personal freedom, I've been ready for a change for about seven and a half years now. Considering Bush's cozy relationship with the religious right, there was no way in hell anything would happen that would facilitate the furthering of rights for polyfolk. In fact, for a good while Bush sought to have the U.S. Constitution amended so that legal marriage would only be available to ONE man and ONE woman only.

I think Sarah Palin is both annoying and downright scary, what with her religious extremist views, her smug rejection of global warming as a concept, her inability to cite one major newspaper she regularly reads to stay informed, and her inability to put together a complete, intelligent, non-bullshit sentence. (Sound familiar??)

Palin doesn't and really can't have a clue. Her educational background is shoddy at best, and as a public servant limited to a backwater town and state that in no way is representative of much of the rest of the U.S., she has been used to being able to abuse her power (troopergate) in a way that was stupidly naive. McCain's picking her as a running mate is abusive, cynical, and downright cruel. Clearly he doesn't think he needs a functional VP, and clearly Palin doesn't have the brains to see that she's being exploited, or that said exploitation has backfired bigtime. Besides all that, she and George Bush have way too much in common - why would we want to give a female version of W a chance at the oval office? We've had enough of that kind of idiocy.

I suppose I could live with John McCain if I had to - if God forbid he wins, I don't have much of a choice unless I'm willing to move to Canada or some other country, which I'm not. I'm one of those patriotic Americans who thinks that moving out of the country makes a person a big part of the problem. I believe in staying put, speaking my truth, and working for change. Yet I'm also all for personal freedom, including the freedom to not love America, to not live here, and to not be an American citizen. I won't like you much if you do that, but I support your freedom to make that choice.

I think Obama's meme that McCain will bring another four years of disastrous Bush policies is right on and not simply an empty soundbite. It's clear to me that McCain is just as out of touch with all but the wealthy elite in the U.S. as Bush is.

There are a few conservatives with whom I am close. One good friend, one quasi-partner, and just about all of my family of origin, though saying I am close to the latter is probably an overstatement.

Please tough out the long lines, assuming that's what happens, and cast your vote. Please cast it for Barak Obama. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin are poly-friendly people AT ALL. We've just experienced eight years of an administration that actively seeks to limit our personal freedom - why would we elect someone who brings four more years of the same?

I promised to keep it light so here ya go - enjoy!