Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: The Rick Warren Kerfuffle



Obama's choice of Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in has caused an uproar among some parts of the Democratic base.

President-elect Barack Obama's honeymoon with the liberal wing of his party came to a crashing halt on Wednesday when his inaugural committee announced that pastor Rick Warren -- he of "The Purpose Driven Life" -- would say the invocation at his swearing-in.

Gay rights groups exploded in protest. Joe Solmonese, the head of the Human Rights Campaign, penned a letter to Obama calling the selection of Warren a "genuine blow" to the cause of gay rights in the country, adding: "By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table."

A poster -- "BarbinMD" -- on the popular liberal Web site Daily Kos asked: "Rick Warren is offering a prayer at the inauguration of Barack Obama? Was there some reason the transition team couldn't find someone who wasn't a homophobe?"

At issue for gay rights groups is the fact that Warren, whose California-based Saddleback Church played host to a forum featuring Obama and John McCain during the campaign, endorsed the Proposition 8 campaign in the Golden State. (The proposition, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, passed with 52 percent in November.)

Obama was asked by the Post's own Peter Slevin about his decision to allow Warren to say the invocation at his inauguration during a press conference this morning. He cast it as yet another example of his belief that now is a time to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

"It is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on some social issues," said Obama, who also pointed out that he had been and would continue to be an advocate for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to hear where the Fix community comes down on the issue. Is the choice of Warren a slap in the face to the gay community by Obama? Or is it a shining example of Obama's message of inclusiveness? Somewhere in between?

Offer your thoughts in the comments section. The best and brightest will be plucked out and featured in their own post later this week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 18, 2008; 11:35 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Denouement of Howard Dean?
Next: Obama and the Transparency Trap

Comments

The argument that Rick Warren tends to cite, by the way - the one about marriage being limited to one man and one woman in every single society on earth for the past 5000 years - is just abominably untrue - even if we're ignoring where same-sex marriage has been legalized right now - and where it has been legalized in history. The most common form of marriage is (and has always been) polygamy. The rarest form of marriage has been polyandry. That's the marriage of one man and several women as the most popular form, the marriage of one woman and several men as its least popular form. Anyway, "one man and one woman" isn't at the top of the list.

Posted by: geoff1234 | December 24, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

There's an old expression:"if something sounds too good to be true, then it isn't!"
How could anyone trust a virtually unknown politian because of his COLOR and believe he's not in the race for opportunity, power, wealth?! All of you who voted for Mr. Obama solely on the notion of have the first African-White American in office are responsible for allowing the next 4 years to be placed into a stranger's hands! This country doesn't know much about the man and you allow his to take the highest office in the country and the most powerful in the world solely because of his color?! Has everyone gone insane?!Why does everyone forget he's 1/2 white!!!!

Posted by: taffyjunkmail | December 24, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to wonder if Obama is a man of good instincts, extraordinary intellect, marvelous analytical ability, fairly generous mind, and absolutely no empathy.

Posted by: ducdebrabant | December 21, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm not following the argument that this move by Obama is representative of his inclusiveness. How do you celebrate that ideal by choosing a man who is himself not inclusive? Obama is right in saying that we need a dialog with every viewpoint we can find, but there is a sharp difference between an open forum for expressing opinion and the ringing endorsement for divisiveness that Obama has provided by giving Warren a place of Honor at his historic inauguration.

This is a disappointing slap in the face not just to gays but to progressives as well. We put our time and our money into Obama's victory in the hopes that we might see an end to the era where American Politics was beholden to the religious right.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether we would be having this same discussion if Obama had chosen someone unsupportive of the rights of African Americans, or women, or for that matter, evangelical Christians. The answer is a very obvious no, because Obama would not have been so tone-deaf as to make such a blunder. The selection of Warren, and to a larger extent the argument supporting it, is just another sign that gay Americans are still second class citizens, even in a democratic White House, even as America claims to turn the page on its history of discrimination and bigotry.

Posted by: Jay82 | December 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I am not gay nor American and have been a huge Obama supporter. Rick Warren is SO offensive to eqaute gays to pedophiles and incest,it sickens me to the core. The torture of innocent and helpless newborn babies and children is so evil and revolting that anyone who compares them to gays shows they themselves to be in the same camp. Rick Warren has NO right to be a religious leader.
If there ever was a Jesus I am positive he would have the opposite views of this egotistical bigot. He needs to immediately apologize to the gay community and if he cannot be uninvited then there should be an openly gay clergy sharing the speech with him. Lets see then how he loves gays you intolerant wind bag.
Mr. Obama be very thankful I am not American because you would of just lost my vote.

Posted by: blueisabella | December 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is the test: if a religious figure opposed equal rights for blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, or another minority group; would Obama have asked them to give a prayer at his inauguration?

Posted by: JonSM99 | December 21, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

God doesn't exist.

Jesus remains as dead as he was 2000 years ago, he's not coming back.

Religious people are just scared superstitious ninnys afraid of their own mortality.

I'm sick and tired of their stupid beliefs and bigotry being injected into public policy.

Our founding fathers were overwhelmingly not christians, they were Diests.

Posted by: everettww | December 20, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

people say that marriage is for a man and woman......then why in biblical times was marriage mostly for the joining of two families rather than the two people??...yes that is true...
bi/gay/lesbian singles and couples
http://www.FindBilover.com

Posted by: altersteven | December 19, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Where is the rest of the democratic party? Why are just "gay rights groups" protesting?

The last time I checked, Warren equates abortion with the holocaust and is a creationist. And believes non-Christians, ie most of the world, will burn in hell. I know it is easy for democrats to chuck gays off the bus, and we are quite used to being taken for granted, but aren't these core beliefs for the party?

What principles actually matter to Obama?
Where is the outrage from democrats??? Where is the rigorous journalism? How many would take back their contributions to Obama now if they could?

Posted by: aha123 | December 19, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

I am actually horrified that Obama would give such an honor to a man who teaches hatred and intolerance. Obama has not only upset the gays but also mainstream christians that see this as pandering to the extreame right. Not change but more of the same.

Posted by: cdp326 | December 19, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the Warren pick is the timing/place. Yes, Obama has invited Dr. Joseph Lowry of civil rights fame to deliver the benediction, but the gay community has good reason to be offended by the Warren invitation. This is the one choice Obama has made so far that I consider unwise. Politically it is absolutely necessary to create space that will encourage dialogue across the spectrum, but this event doesn't have to be the one to do it. He has (at least) 4 years of events to do that. It was a bad choice. But I don't think it means Obama won't champion gay rights, and I don't think he's sold out. But I do think he forgot to look at all of the angles of this invitation, and he should have been more considerate to a large block of his supporters whom he can't afford to alienate. He won the election by appealing to those across the spectrum, but he should be more aware that it starts with his base, and they should come first.

Posted by: stewjack | December 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is fond of saying that marriage has been between one man and one woman for 5,000 years across all religions. The man is either an idiot, he's lying or both. He's obviously never read his Bible because those pages are full of people that practiced polygamy. Polygamy or polyandry are practiced in about 1/3 of the world today. Rick Warren is a homophobe that will say or do anything to convince people to believe his fantasies.

Obama has hopped into bed with the religious right. The only change we're going to see is a few different nameplates on cabinet office doors. We've been conned and Obama can no longer be trusted.

Posted by: sparaxis | December 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm not one to believe that the inclusion of someone who has a belief (like gay marriage) in a position should be considered a slap in the face to anyone, but in this particular instance, I actually agree with the liberal wing here.

We are talking about the person who is giving his invocation, the most symbolic of symoblic positions and as a preacher, he is particularly known for his moral beliefs, thus his belief in gay marriage is an important factor. There's nothing with Obama's decision so long as he realizes that is what he is essentially doing.

Posted by: andygoldman | December 19, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I wish I could get my $100.00 back from Obama.
Nobama for me. What an insult. I won't watch any of this especially the dripping god-syrup from Warren's lips. Obama talks of inclusivity but he embraces exclusivity by choosing this god-slinger Warren. I have a gay child and I'll now pray more for her; the right has always wanted to jail gays---and now the antigay minister in-chief is riding herd.

Posted by: northcountry1 | December 19, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I cannot express how disappointed I am that Barak Obama has selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. I am equally dumbfounded at his explanation that this is a decision of inclusion. While I will not equate evangelicals to the KKK or Islamic terrorists, the rigid inflexibility of their beliefs and their devout intolerance toward certain oppressed segments of our society have painful similarities. What an added offense that this is one of the first acts of the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, whose inauguration is supposed to be a celebration of freedom and the defeat of hatred and intolerance against minorities. This event is supposed to be the culmination of a 150-year war against hatred and intolerance, the wounds of which I thought might finally be healed by this president.

Barak's line of argument that Rick Warren is a selection that celebrates the diversity of opinion in America is a lame one. I fear that Barak feels comfortable with the views shared by many of the church's (black & white) in this country; church's that teach intolerance and the "sins" of homosexuality. It is so unimaginably and painfully ironic that, as a black man in America, Barak is still able to act like the old white guy he ran against and impart this same intolerance on the GLBT community. My sincere hope that this man would finally unite our country has all but vanished. Does he not see the parallel between same-sex equality and the long struggle for racial civil rights?

I donated to Obama's campaign, I voted for him. I got everyone I knew to vote for him. I am so hurt and offended by this decision that his Presidency has all but lost its appeal to me. After eight years of Compassionate Conservatism’s war on the gay community, this is our reward??? If Barak goes ahead with this and doesn't immediately do something to show that he actually believes the rights of ALL Americans (including GLBT), he will forever lose my respect, my support, and my hope. His next book, "The Audacity of Intolerance".

Posted by: NYC45 | December 19, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I had no idea Warren's views were so extreme. It's one thing to oppose same-sex marriage as he did on this morning's "Today" show, citing his belief that no culture has recognized it in history. However, Warren went one step further and compared sexual orientation to his own natural need to have multiple sex partners. He said gay people needed to show "maturity" and deny themselves just as he has done by being monogamous. Does he really expect gay people to be celibate and live out their lives without love and companionship? Warren either doesn't get it, or he intended to be insulting with that comparison.

Posted by: valandsend | December 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Comedians like to satirize Obama as being Christ-like, but not even a miracle can change bullcrap into wine.

Posted by: jdayest | December 19, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The gaystapo does NOT get to revoke the Freedom of Speech nor the Freedom of Religion of Christians.

Perhaps they should try being "tolerant" for ONCE?
==================================

best post by far !

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | December 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I supported Mitt Romney through the GOP primary, and didn't really support either McCain nor Obama. I think Obama is a liberal and didn't like the way McCain flipped on positions for the GOP primary. I never thought Obama was really interested at all in bipartisanship. But, since he has been elected he's built a team of people like: Sec. of Defense Robert Gates to his old post & asked Rick Warren to pray for his inagrual address. It looks different, looks like change he is promising. A White House that accepts and listens to the other view.

Posted by: reason5 | December 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is a bigot. He equates homosexuality with incest and pedophilia. But I have news for Rick: homosexuality is as much a part of my DNA as heterosexuality is a part of his DNA. So get over it. Incest and pedophilia are behavioral choices. Being gay is not about behavior, it's about who and what a person is. I was born gay. Pedophiles, on the other hand, engage in that kind of behavior because of a disorder based on learning or experience; they weren't born to be pedophiles.

Obama should not condone bigotry in the interest of "reaching out." Honoring an anti-gay minister with a prominent role at the inauguration is no different from honoring a minister who is anti-Semitic (John Hagee) or racist (Jeremiah Wright). It's appalling.

Posted by: fugitivenyc | December 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is a bigot. He equates homosexuality with incest and pedophilia. But I have news for Rick: homosexuality is as much a part of my DNA as heterosexuality is a part of his DNA. So get over it. Incest and pedophilia are behavioral choices. Being gay is not about behavior, it's about who and what a person is. I was born gay. Pedophiles, on the other hand, engage in that kind of behavior because of a disorder based on learning or experience; they weren't born to be pedophiles.

Obama should not condone bigotry in the interest of "reaching out." Honoring an anti-gay minister with a prominent role at the inauguration is no different from honoring a minister who is anti-Semitic (John Hagee) or racist (Jeremiah Wright). It's appalling.

Posted by: fugitivenyc | December 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The gaystapo does NOT get to revoke the Freedom of Speech nor the Freedom of Religion of Christians.

Perhaps they should try being "tolerant" for ONCE?

Posted by: NeverLeft | December 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

again

he calls good Americans... on par with pedophiles and bestiality

repeatedly and aggressively.

I don't know what he is curbing...but he is in no one's head to tell them that the LOVE they feel is evil.

what he is doing is the same as the men in the 50's and 60's who said similar things about interracial relationships...

when the inauguration is done...Warren has received an endorsement and stature to continue on a bigger platform to say those things about good Americans

and give creedence to people who would like to do them harm.

Posted by: klondike2 | December 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Practicing tolerance to a man who repeatedly is vocal and aggressive in promoting intolerance.(again I am not a pedophile and if he says it one more time I think he just likes the idea )

...Is not showing how iabove the fray you are.

this is not "just" a 5 minute speech.

It is an endorsement of the man and his words to an audience that will be perhaps the largest the world has ever seen...no matter how you say you don't agree with his words and his teachings...

Obama choosing him will give more creedence to his comparisons to me and millions of others being on par with pedophiles and beastiality.

How would you all like Obama to endorse someone ...give them that platform and recognition if they were aggressively telling people you were not curbing your animalistic urges...and that is what you needed to do... and not be straight.

That the love you felt for your spouse was in essence evil and perverse...even though he does not know what is in millions of good people's heads.

If he had preached about interracial relations (like they did in the 50's and 60's) being like bestiality...woukld Obama be saying it was just inclusive and people should just calm down and accept other people's views.

You think Obama's mother would not be frightened to her boots if a President gave a preacher who preached that the same recognition and reward?

that is not tolerance...

that is just wrong.

Posted by: klondike2 | December 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I woke up today and said to myself; "A politician is a politician." They all use and throw away.
Until Obama apologizes and univites Warren I will mistrust him for the rest of his political career. I KNEW Hilary was a better choice.

Posted by: billwa02 | December 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I love Barack Obama. He has had my full support. I have donated money I couldn't really afford and given my time registering voters and GOTV canvassing up to and on election day. Given my full support I still react to some of his decisions e.g. Hillary SOS, and some of his other cabinet picks have made me nervous that maybe we will be fooled again and he is just a politician. Asking Rick
Warren to give the invocation at the Ignauguration is another upsetting pick.
BUT, I have decided to set my CYNICISIM aside and put my trust in Obama because I realize that he has a plan and is really doing what he said he was going to do.
We just project the old politics on him, the politics of the left-right the politics of distrust and hardened hearts.
The politics of old. We have to change our thinking. If he is going to build a coalition to impliment the changes we all voted for him to do he need to open a dialog with people outside our comfort zone, building bridges that will come in handy when he is trying to impliment health care and environmental reform.
Obama seems to be operating a few steps ahead of us. I have decided to set emotion aside and try to think ahead a few steps, to be pragmatic, like Barack.
We face a grim future, and if we don't all come together, even people who we don't agree with on all things, we are never going to see the change we want.
Some things to remember: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the change we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek".-Barack Obama
Change won't come overnight. WE have to change too, our thinking has to be pragmatic. Our country is in serious trouble. Democrats have been lost in self-destruction and the machine and identity politics of the past. He is showing us a way out with a centrist approach grounded in reconciliation combined with a return to core democratic principles. "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: Democracy, Liberty, Opportunity and Unyielding Hope".--Barack Obama
More food for thought: "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
--Margaret Mead

Godspeed Obama
Peace

Posted by: petalsndreams2002 | December 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. There are plenty of conservative pastors who are not crazy. What does Obama gain by inviting Warren instead of someone like Joel Osteen, who has carefully avoided controversial social issues.

Posted by: gary47a | December 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Play the "The Fix" drinking game: Scan through the comments to this post and take a drink every time you see the term "slap in the face."

But make sure you have a designated driver if you're playing at work.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 19, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Let me play Devil's Advocate here and put the affirmative reason for including Warren on the Inauguration program. First, being that he represents an "imprecise reading of the bible" according to religious fundamentalists quoted in a Wall Street Journal article. Any movement away from biblical literalism on part of religious conservatives, is an advancement, IMO.

Second on a related point, Warren's views on poverty, fighting AIDS, and environmental stewardship are a definite improvement over James Dobson's Focus on the Family certitudes, with its literal reading of the bible and its frankly medieval religious zealotry. A zealotry more dangerous for having bows and arrows having been replaced over time with smart bombs and catapults having been replaced with nuclear weaponry.

Third, that this literal interpretation of the bible has significant support in one of our major parties is also frightening to me. Warren while a conservative, seems amenable to conversation, although some of his viewpoint on evolution, for instance, seems bizarre (he's closed his mind to it). Also, his writing off of the Social Gospel as Marxist, seems equally out of sync with the 21st century. The Sermon on the Mount seems a much more promising common ground for the secular and religious, at least in terms of the role of government in our common life.

So there is much to be in conversation with Mr. Warren about, even absent his unsurprising views on abortion and gays although, in terms of gays he seems to have budged a bit in a better direction. Critical conversation as intense as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright got in the other direction, might benefit us all. Wright's views had residues of racism and victimhood that weighed down the effectiveness of his social gospel message. Warren's religious conservatism would similarly be positively effected if similarly shorn of right wing dross which claims biblical infallibility and denial of scientific fact and rational argumentation in the face of a mountain of evidence that is incontrovertible to any open to reason rather than of unquestioning superstition.

When science and spirituality (religious and otherwise), can walk hand and hand to make better people (as in the scientific case for spirituality as an aid to brain development in the publication Hardwired to Connect by the Institute for American Values), and can learn from each other through rational discussion, we might actually get something out of the kerfuffle instigated by the Warren Inauguration controversy.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | December 19, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

ekim50, Obama is not playing on a Chess board, he is engaged in raw, crass political pandering and triangulating of the kind mastered by the scummy Clintons. That is NOT what Obama campaigned on, and perhaps you'll not be so callously dismissive when it's YOUR ox that gets gored. Tell me, ekim50, do you think it is "disagreeing without being disagreeable" or consistent with "civility" to declare repeatedly that there is no difference between having a committed same-sex partner and raping a child? If you think honoring a raving bigot like that does no harm to the LGBT community, you're a naive fool.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 19, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Those of us who expect tolerance and acceptance should be willing to practice it.

Posted by: Rivery | December 19, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama has, unfortunately, created a Catch-22: to include someone such as Rick Warren with his belief baggage sends the message that it's ok to exclude the GLBT community. It is a slap in the face to GLBT's, but depending on actions that he could make in his first term like prodding Congress to vote on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or the Defense of Marriage Act, the redness will subside or turn brighter.

Posted by: Blue02dude | December 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

There are thousands of very revered religious figures in this country who do not equate gays and lesbians with pedophilia.

Not only that, but the gay community just came off a heart wrenching defeat in California. Not just an ordinary election loss, but something that goes to the core of who we are and who we aspire to be.

Mr. Obama could have chosen someone not involved in that fight to do the invocation. For Mr. Obama not to understand that is incredibly callous.

He seems to be the kid who wants everyone to love him, so he is willing to leave his true friends to get the acceptance of the cool kids. Guess what the religious right will never love him nor do they want the kind of America Mr. Obama talks about.


Posted by: kojer1 | December 19, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Chris

The man has repeatedly called gays and lesbians on par with pedophiles.

Can you think what it would be like if the President of the United States picked as the representative of moral and religious authority a man who has driven home a point that you were a pedophile based on not a single fact or truth...besides what is in his own head.

He did it again this morning on Ann Curry's interview...

he said gays just like pedophiles just need to control their urges and not be gay.

Is this 1963

of course if it were 1963 he would also be preaching the popular belief that interracial marriage was unnatural and maybe even unholy...

How would Barack feel about that pick...

perhaps when his mother was living in a neighborhood that strongly bought into the idea that interracial fraternization was an offense... a neighborhood perhaps she had to walk down...at night...daily.

How would he feel then when the President at the time picked a man who was vocally and aggressively preaching that what his mother was doing as an adult with another adult she was in love with...was on par with beastiality and pedophilia?

as she walked through neighborhoods where they believed that

How would he feel if he had walked through those same neighborhoods as the product of that relationship campaigning for that President...in neighborhoods that believed that based on nothing but the word of some social conservatives? Neighborhoods he probably should not have been going.

I did that...for him...in backwoods towns all over New hampshire... for 2 YEARS

I was one of the first 50 people doing it for him in New Hampshire

I fought daily for him for 2 years.

I gave up more than he will ever know to get him elected.

and I am gay.

this is not about marriage...

it is about a man whose rhetoric spreads theories about a minority population based on no facts (besides his "for 5000 years marriage was"... well for 8000 years slavery was pushed okay by societies including the Bible)

This choice ...this reaching across the aisle and inclusivity...by including those who exclude and insult...

back in the 60's...if the President said that after he chose an anti-interracial marriage preacher...

Barack would have had a lot of four letter words for that President.

and my guess is...would never support him again.

Posted by: klondike2 | December 19, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I meant to say for 800 years slavery was pushed okay by sopcieties including the bible

Posted by: klondike2 | December 19, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Chris

The man has repeatedly called gays and lesbians on par with pedophiles.

Can you think what it would be like if the President of the United States picked as the representative of moral and religious authority a man who has driven home a point that you were a pedophile based on not a single fact or truth...besides what is in his own head.

He did it again this morning on Ann Curry's interview...

he said gays just like pedophiles just need to control their urges and not be gay.

Is this 1963

of course if it were 1963 he would also be preaching the popular belief that interracial marriage was unnatural and maybe even unholy...

How would Barack feel about that pick...

perhaps when his mother was living in a neighborhood that strongly bought into the idea that interracial fraternization was an offense... a neighborhood perhaps she had to walk down...at night...daily.

How would he feel then when the President at the time picked a man who was vocally and aggressively preaching that what his mother was doing as an adult with another adult she was in love with...was on par with beastiality and pedophilia?

as she walked through neighborhoods where they believed that

How would he feel if he had walked through those same neighborhoods as the product of that relationship campaigning for that President...in neighborhoods that believed that based on nothing but the word of some social conservatives? Neighborhoods he probably should not have been going.

I did that...for him...in backwoods towns all over New hampshire... for @ YEARS

I was one of the first 50 people doing it for him in New Hampshire

I fought daily for him for 2 years.

I gave up more than he will ever know to get him elected.

and I am gay.

this is not about marriage...

it is about a man whose rhetoric spreads theories about a minority population based on no facts (besides his "for 5000 years marriage was"... well for 8000 years slavery was pushed okay by the bible)

This choice ...this reaching across the aisle and inclusivity...by including those who exclude and insult...

back in the 60's...if the President said that after he chose an anti-interracial marriage preacher...

Barack would have had a lot of four letter words for that President.

and my guess is...would never support him again.

Posted by: klondike2 | December 19, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

To pick up so many well educated people and then having the invocation made by a guy who does not understand evolution is sadly funny.In a way, it mocks religion. It reminded me of the weird alliance between Billy Graham and President Nixon (cartoon at http://booksublime.blogspot.com/)

Posted by: usgarance | December 19, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I am sitting at my computer laughing like a crazy man at all of the poor deluded queers who still think that OHB really gives a tinker's damn about what they think or want. They are too stupid to realize that he got everything that he needed- money and votes.

Being a member of two plant societies, I have several gay friends. I hope that they are wise enough to know that Obama has no friends, only tools.

Well thanks for a good laugh, I hope that you were smart enough not to contribute to the world class Ponzi scheme in the headlines.

Posted by: hugh5 | December 19, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Might I add that this news in conjunction with Obama opting for Hilda Solis over the equally qualified and openly gay Mary Beth Maxwell for Labor Secretary is making me very cautious on the sincerity "inclusive" leadership in general.

Posted by: Mon_A | December 19, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

ekim50 covered this very well a few posts below and I agree completely. So there is two votes for that point of view.

Posted by: MtnWest | December 19, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, but being "inclusive" does not have to, and should not, entail tolerating intolerance. It's not a left-right thing, it's a right-wrong thing.

Posted by: leftyfrompa | December 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I think by "inclusiveness" the Obama team means political pandering. As a Christian man, I understand that it's important for him to have a leader in that faith present at his inauguration. Even IF he chose a church leader who personally opposed gay marriage yet never integrated those views on a political platform, I'd be much more understanding - since I do believe there can be a separation of faith and politics.

Here's where Obama's choice falls into the category of being a political statement: the fact that Warren used his spiritual platform to propel a political agenda (Prop 8). Intentional or not, choosing Warren to deliver his invocation speech is making a political statement against the gay community.

Posted by: Mon_A | December 18, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

After 9/11, there was such a wonderful feeling of national unity and goodwill for a couple of weeks, until it was shattered, for me at least, when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson outrageously blamed gays and lesbians, among others, for the terrorist attacks.

Today feels the same. Since the election, I had been feeling the same sense of national unity and goodwill. And while I knew it wouldn't last forever, I was so looking forward to joining with everyone on the National Mall and celebrating the inauguration of the nation's first president.

But Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren and Obama's patronizing and insulting rationalizations of it have, for me, again shattered the sense of national unity and goodwill. The inauguration will now only be partly a celebration for me. Partly it will be a distracting intrusion of gratuitous antigay bigotry, and that will be true no matter how well behaved the divisive Warren is.

I don't feel the sense of national unity and goodwill anymore. That warm flame went out inside me today, and it's something that Barack Obama won't be able to re-ignite. Obama extinguished the flame today, and I feel a great sense of loss. That makes me profoundly sad and not a little resentful. Why did he choose his inauguration to be so callously divisive?

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 18, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"The problems that must be confronted do not reduce to the ideologically "correct" move on every issue. Rick Warren is not being invited to make policy and BHO will not do anything that really undermines equalty for LGBT."

But why Rick Warren? Does he have some skill that is so irreplacable that we can't find someone who isn't a 'phobe?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I voted for BHO because I believed in his vision and, more, believed in his judgment. When he said he wanted -- the we needed -- to end hyper-partisan politics, what did people think? Did they think that was code for marginalize those with whom we disagree? -- Look, are we going to solve our very sizable problems in this country or not? Do we believe that the only way to do that is for "us" to win and for "them" to lose? BHO thinks we can't, as a nation, win that way and I agree. Moreover, don't believe for a minute that this is just feel-good symbolism. BHO has proved to be a superior politician. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. The problems that must be confronted do not reduce to the ideologically "correct" move on every issue. Rick Warren is not being invited to make policy and BHO will not do anything that really undermines equalty for LGBT. But, he can be helped with other policy agendas related to environment and policy by cooperative relations with those who identify with Rick Warren. It's a big chess board and we elected BHO to play on it. So far, I'm satisfied he's the master I thought he was.

Posted by: ekim50 | December 18, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

I voted for BHO because I believed in his vision and, more, believed in his judgment. When he said he wanted -- the we needed -- to end hyper-partisan politics, what did people think? Did they think that was code for marginalize those with whom we disagree? -- Look, are we going to solve our very sizable problems in this country or not? Do we believe that the only way to do that is for "us" to win and for "them" to lose? BHO thinks we can't, as a nation, win that way and I agree. Moreover, don't believe for a minute that this is just feel-good symbolism. BHO has proved to be a superior politician. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. The problems that must be confronted do not reduce to the ideologically "correct" move on every issue. Rick Warren is not being invited to make policy and BHO will not do anything that really undermines equalty for LGBT. But, he can be helped with other policy agendas related to environment and policy by cooperative relations with those who identify with Rick Warren. It's a big chess board and we elected BHO to play on it. So far, I'm satisfied he's the master I thought he was.

Posted by: ekim50 | December 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe wrote "O-Nation, let's pray on this one...hard" and assorted stuff you can look up.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: officermancuso | December 18, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

O-Nation, let's pray on this one...hard

I think by morning there will have been an intervention to help O. Maybe by some O-Nation icon like Patti Solis Doyle or Claire McCaskill or K. Olbermann or Oprah or Ludacris. Anyone!!!! And then Warren will suddenly withdraw so he won't be a distraction. Come on, Warren's so extreme he makes Herr Hannity look like a card-carrying Commie. He shouldn't be within 100 miles of the inauguration podium. O, snap out of it!!!!!!!

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 18, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

to broadwayjoe and all the other super-partisan Democrats, you really are in no position to criticize Obama. He won the election. You type as though you'd won it.

Please remember the long litany of Democratic losers...Humphrey, McGovern, Carter (on his 2'nd try), Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.

Obama is different from each of those men, and if that displeases you, perhaps you should get you to a monastery and spend some time in contemplation.

Posted by: officermancuso | December 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

there was supposed to be a grin after my previous comment. I put the grin in a kind of brackets that apparently causes the text between the brackets not to display. My apologies!

Posted by: officermancuso | December 18, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it, O.

Broadway Joe has defended you through all the bogus attacks by the bad guys over the last year (Resko, Wright, Blags, Bill and Hill's Say-No-to-O post-convention TV tour, Phalin's hate rallies, robo-trolls like 37 and canoli, etc.). But we can't back you on this one, bro.

Rick Warren, if my memory serves, is the same guy who set you up at the Saddleback "debate" and almost ended your campaign. Remember when -- allegedly -- Warren falsely claimed Mac was in some "Get Smart" cone of silence when in fact Mac was outside the "zone" and had the debate questions (and the answers)...allegedly.

BHO, I know you were quite taken by hysterian D. Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln mythology, "Team of Rivals." Well, I was taken by the last issue of Mad magazine but I'm not using Alfred E. Newman as guidance for major life decisions. [We have no view on, or care about, the alternative lifestyle aspect of this Warren controversy, uh, not that there's anything wrong with it (although some say Genesis spoke of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).]

O, get this Warren guy off the inauguration program NOW even if you have to use white-out on the programs. And will someone please get the Goodwin book from O and throw it away? O, start supporting the folks who supported you: the Dems, Obamacans (Hagel, Powell), independents, young people, AAs, etc., and stop with the reaching out to sworn enemies. What's next? Reaching out to D. Duke, Hal Turner, Bill Kristol, Mark Halperin, Howie Kurtz, and Imus????

Another bad decision: No Maya Angelou for the inauguration poem????? Maya has lived her whole life for this. What gives? How good would "Strong Men Keep A Comin'" have been?

O, snap out of it...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 18, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"Offer your thoughts in the comments section. The best and brightest will be plucked out"....

Is that some kind of a threat?

Posted by: officermancuso | December 18, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"At issue for gay rights groups is the fact that Warren, whose California-based Saddleback Church played host to a forum featuring Obama and John McCain during the campaign, endorsed the Proposition 8 campaign in the Golden State. (The proposition, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, passed with 52 percent in November.)"

Actually the issue is that Warren compared gays being included in the institution of marriage to incest and pedophilia. How would you like to have your marriage compared incest or pedophilia? Warren is NOT moderate on this issue - he's a bigot - and Obama should be called out on this.

This isn't surprising. After all, when the prop 8 supporters were claiming that Obama supported prop 8, the Obama campaign cynically did nothing officially to dispute the lie. He wanted to play it both ways on this issue. The same thing happened in Florida.

This shows why it's poor strategy for gay rights organizations to get so allied with the left. Many mainstream rank and file gays don't identify with the so-called "progressive agenda" - but tend to stay away from the Republican party because of the stranglehold the theocrats have over republicans.

Gays should quit letting themselves be treated like cheap dates by Democrats like Obama, and quit giving money to democrats.

Posted by: lloydletta | December 18, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I read this as an "I intend to be president of all the people" statement, calculated to soothe any nerves that can be soothed that were irritated by the Rev. Wright kerfuffle.

Posted by: officermancuso | December 18, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

One wonders why Obama deliberately went out of his way to offend so many people. The far right will never do him any return favors so why does he do this. One can only conclude that he has his own, very carefully covered up, agenda when it comes to gays and lesbians. This selection does not bode well for progressive people and I fear that, once again, we may have been taken in by a smooth talking politician. I wonder what would happen if people like Clinton resigned from his cabinet over this issue. Or the other prominent woman Napolitano and Clinton. Would the man than see the errors of his way or would he be like Bush and say, So what?

Posted by: Opa2 | December 18, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand why people are so up in arms. No matter what the President-Elect does, he will never be able to make EVERYONE happy. So, in choosing a person with whom he feels a spiritual connection to help begin the most important day of his political career, then he has the right do just that. Personally, I do not have the same religious beliefs as the President-Elect, but his choice in Warren doesn't offend me in the least. The inauguration has no direct impact on me. The choice of Warren is absolutely NOT a slap in the fact to anyone. If you chose to take everything that everyone does as a personal attack, then you have much bigger issues than supporting your "same sex marriage" rights, etc. I myself am 150% in support of same-sex-marriage and other related benefits. I believe that it is not the right of our government to dictate what actually defines a marriage or a family. That being said, I firmly believe that everything that happens AFTER Obama is sworn in to office can be scrutinized as he will be performing duties that can/will have a direct affect on the lives of all US citizens. Until then, if he wants to chose a spiritual leader to recite the invocation at the swearing in, then he shall do just that. Actually, anyone who takes his choice as a 'slap in the face' is self-involved and probably believes that the whole world revolves around him/her. Folks, his choice has nothing to do with YOU. It was a personal choice. He was allowed to chose the person, and he did. Period. Get over it, and get on with it. Geez, don't we have enough crap to deal with right now?

Posted by: whatiswrongwithpeople | December 18, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Rick Warren to step up to the lecturn to give his invocation. I and all of my friends who have tickets will promptly begin to boo as loud as we can and continue until he finishes. Welcome to Washington Barack.

Posted by: jmfromdc | December 18, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Maybe this is a good thing. it gives another chance for gays to make a lot of noise and be mad as hell. Also, gives a chance to marginalize racists such as astanley and milbrooks. I'm fine with gay rights being shoved down their throats. Let them choke. They deserve nothing better.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too shrewd – and too aware – not to know how deeply wounding and insulting his choice of Rick Warren to give a blessing at his inauguration is to the gay community. It’s like losing Prop 8 all over again. We have to assume that this decision is as intentional and as calculated as the Iraqi journalist’s who threw his shoes at Bush.

Warren is an activist bigot, who opposes both gay and women’s rights. By this choice, Obama joins a long line of ordinary politicians who court the gay vote only to abandon them to a post-election calculus that this is a community that matters less than others in the end.

Shame on you, Barack Obama. You’re looking more and more like just another hack from Chicago. If you’re all about inclusion of every conceivable perspective (which invites the question of what you stand for), why not have the KKK march in your inaugural parade? You just laid a big turd in your own punchbowl.

Posted by: nkingcal | December 18, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

"What they are asking for is essentially SPECIAL rights based on who they like to sleep with."

No, based on who they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with and share everything with, just like heterosexuals. Maybe it would be better if we just abolished state marriage all together, if it is so easy and fair a you claim.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"Again, please name ONE mainstream study that "proves" conclusively that homosexuality is anything other than a choice"

SHOCKER, mibrooks doesn't understand the scientific method!!! It is impossible to prove such a thing, though it was nice of you to flip the burden of proof. You asserted that no serious scientists accepts such a position. I did misquote though, I saw the APA and said psychiatric, but I meant psychological. Here is the article, from their website, the main post on homosexuality:

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Separate, but equal. Sounds like a great idea...


"the marriage tradition stems from the idea that the guy will not run out and leave the girl with the kids and no means of support. at least until about 20 years ago, going back thousands of years."

Please give me one cite on this one. Though, maybe since it is a religious act, we should work harder to bring our laws in line with the bible;

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Goombay "Can anyone name - without researching - who delivered the invocation at the 2004 inauguration? Any other inauguration? Thank you."

----
Indeed - Billy Graham delivered the invocation at almost every inauguration for the past 20 years. When he couldn't do so in 2001, his son Franklin stepped in. Billy's business was evangelism and he almost completely renounced involvement in social issues except in relatively subtle ways. Thus he was a safe - and inclusive - choice for many decades. Not that Franklin comes anywhere close to Billy's iconoclastic status, but he would have been a better choice than Rick Warren, a man who's name is synonymous with bigotry to many of the left-wingers who pushed Obama through the primaries and helped get him elected.

It just seems a silly choice for someone who wants to bring the nation together. The only way he could have made more waves would have been to bring Rev. Wright in for the invocation, or maybe Rev. Fred Phelps. Honestly, what was he thinking? Why stir up all this debate over a role that's wholly symbolic? Choose your battles - and reconciliations - more wisely, Barak. Geez.

Posted by: quietine | December 18, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile _ Nice try. You quote is from a minority report made to the American Psychiatry Association. It was rejected by both the committee and the majority of members. Again, please name ONE mainstream study that "proves" conclusively that homosexuality is anything other than a choice.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile _ Nice try. You quote is from a minority report made to the American Psychiatry Association. I was rejected.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Cry on, but its not gonna change. the more gays act like stricken deer, the more people are turned off to their supposed plight."

Actually, no. That's not how people get their rights recognized. Blacks didn't get Jim Crow laws repealed by staying quiet and hoping for benevolent whitey to fix things. Same thing with women's suffrage. Downtrodden workers didn't just hope for their kind bosses to fix things. They went on strike.

That's how this is going to work. Eventually gays will get their right to marry. It will happen in my lifetime. The difference is that I can honestly say that I supported the effort the whole time. astanley will say the same thing, of course, but wouldn't have a problem tying them to the back of a truck and dragging them for several miles. Perhaps lynching a niggger as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"So should we outlaw marriage for anyone over 45? How about for those with no desire to have children? How about the infertile or the impotent (or am I hitting too close to home there)?"

Heh, there was an amendment proposed to the Washington State Constitution to declare any marriage null if a child was not produced within the first year.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"poor us, we are gay, and love each other, but need a license to validate it". Give me a break!!!!! You can leave property to anyone you want, you can leave money to anyone you want. Thats equal!! can you give them your health care? NO! I cannot give my sister my health care either. many single people wish they could share someone elses health care, but they cannot. What they are asking for is essentially SPECIAL rights based on who they like to sleep with. I say hell no, as do MOST, I mean MOST of the world. Cry on, but its not gonna change. the more gays act like stricken deer, the more people are turned off to their supposed plight. Of all the things going on in the world, i wish they would just shut the hell up (like they want everyone who is non-gay to do)

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

the marriage tradition stems from the idea that the guy will not run out and leave the girl with the kids and no means of support. at least until about 20 years ago, going back thousands of years. for old folks it allowed inheritance to happen automatically. Other than that it is mostly a promise before God, to remain faithful and loving . I know you Libs hate that F word. you prefer the other f word - Free as in free mortgages.

what is so great about it that everyone is clamoring to get in, while over half, need to get out right away?

I could personally care less who marries whom and where and when. but I do respect that many people care a lot. In order to upset the apple cart, you would need to convince me that there is much pain and suffering happening through this exclusion.

and I'm not talkling about the fake pain you Libs like to mention when talking about waterboarding, Gitmo, shredded constitution, FISA, pre-school education, global warming or any other of your causes du jour.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyone citing this -"...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors....psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."" is an idiot. Especially when it comes from the American Psychiatric Association. These are the same kooks who gave us kids on Ridalin, and all other sorts of nonsense. lets be for real. The pole smokers and oyster eaters want us to legalize their right to do so, because they say so. Pedophilia is also a documented mental disorder, but we dont legalize it. You cannot get married now, you wont be allowed to tommorrow, so you might as well get used to it. Attacking a person whose faith says hes not SUPPOSEd to condone gayness is whats actually intolerant. Rick Warren is NOT the problem, its the gay agenda, and their message. If gay marraigge was a right, it couldnt have been taken away from you. Give me a break, and be happy you folks arent getting electric shock (the American Psychiatric Association says thats ok too).

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Marriage is about the most basic religious notion there is, for most people

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 6:17 PM |"
----
Marriage does not belong to religion, that is why atheists and agnostics can get married too, at a courthouse if necessary.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

No religious notions are trampled on.

>>>>>>>>>>

Are you completely daft? Marriage is about the most basic religious notion there is, for most people.

I assume you have appointed yourself the notion czar and will be deciding for all of us what we should beleive now.

and I love the way you try to characterize my argument in any way you choose, ignoring my points. I understand you must od that to try to make sense, but it is laughable.

I have never accused Obama of being "too conservative". I am more worried about his 3 t spending splurge than his convocation. I know you Libs love to get all worked about every little thing and ignore the big stuff, but you elected this guy.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I'll type slowly for you Lib tools. the STATE, that is composed of a bunch of Lib know-it-alls, has a stake in protecting the rights and upbringing of the next generation of tax -payers. especially since the Dems are spending all the money for this entire century in the next two years. to that end, they have promoted stable households for children to grow up and be sheltered until they can join ACORN and steal votes on their own.

this is the intent behind the tax difference. If not, explain it to me.

all the other changes you prefer are simple civil contract measures and are not rights that anyone is automatically entitled to. I can't tell who is gay by simply looking at them so it is hard to discriminate in public.

Just exactly what are your issues, beyond the obvious ones with goats?

If you think social security and hospital visits are essential to living the good life, you run congress now, you have for two years. enbact the CHANGE you promised. stop blaming Repubs for all your shortcomings. cowboy up. you can start by firing dodd and Frank.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"can the milk czar please instruct me how much milk I will need this week. I have to stop on the way home. Is 7-11 OK or is there a preferred government outlet?"

See, this is Obama's brilliance. The rpevious blog questions whether his Cabinet is too conservative, this blog is about the liberal backlash to Pastor Warren giving the invocation, and conservatives have no clue how to attack, with Zouk here still claiming his a radical socialist about to enslave the Western world. It's really funny to watch.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"the only question in my mind is, exactly what rights are missing? can they be handled with civil measures without trampling on religious notions?"

No religious notions are trampled on. You just said it was a state action to encourage procreation, that's a secular motivation, not a religious one. There are lots of secular justifications for marriage, which is why the state plays a role in it. Aloowing gay marriage won't mandate a church perform a service, so how are religious liberties stepped on. How do two men getting married equal opression for you?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It certainly says something about THE ONE that all his people are called Czars. no need for any inputs from the serfs.

can the milk czar please instruct me how much milk I will need this week. I have to stop on the way home. Is 7-11 OK or is there a preferred government outlet?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I am gay and have been a gay activist for 30 years and I say BRAVO, Barack Obama! Joe Solmonese of The Human Rights Campaign does not speak for all LGBT people, especially considering that this organization has failed the LGBT community so dramatically recently, particularly in the pathetic campaign it conducted against Proposition 8. It's time for a new approach and it's about time that we had a president who is not an ideologue and can go beyond embracing only those based on "loyalty" or agreement on all issues. Isn't that what Reagan and Bush did? In picking Rick Warren to simply give a prayer based on common ground, Obama makes a statement that as people we are much more alike than we are different. He is not agreeing with Warren's political positions, nor should we fear he does. This sets the stage for Obama to challenge existing homophobic government policies with congress on a similar basis. It greatly increases his credibility in arguing for LGBT equal rights and the elimination of The Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and ultimately for national Civil Unions. Obama has indeed changed politics as usual already. This is not the "your with me or your against me" victim-based, "it's my turn" "punish your opponents" politics of the Bushes or the Clinton's for that matter. It's a brilliant move of inclusion, which we can all build on to advocate for LGBT rights. If Barack Obama can include Warren, he can include us, and Warren and his followers must remember that when the time comes. Plus, isn't it inclusion that we as LGBT people have been asking for all along? The bottom line is that Obama is already leading in a way that is new and challenging and we are not used to it yet. He is not taking the failed approach of adversarial politics that has lead to the bitter cynicism of Solmonese and others, and that is a very good thing for the LGBT cause.

Posted by: vitaletti101 | December 18, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Marriage is a centuries old tradition and it is encouraged by the State to create the next generation. Gays can't participate."

So should we outlaw marriage for anyone over 45? How about for those with no desire to have children? How about the infertile or the impotent (or am I hitting too close to home there)?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

More good news: Adm Dennis Blair to be Obama's Intel Czar. Rhodes scholar, Russian linguist, known as a "braniac" who pushes political and diplomatic engagement over military confrontation. Competence and professionalism over ideology. 20 Jan can't come soon enough!!

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I have not made a case. I only claim that you are an idiot and probably a goat F**cker. the topic is so much more involved than any sily Lib blog can debate.

Marriage is a centuries old tradition and it is encouraged by the State to create the next generation. Gays can't participate.

But, the question of civil rights is not open to voting and opinion.

the only question in my mind is, exactly what rights are missing? can they be handled with civil measures without trampling on religious notions?

I don't care for the loony left claims of shredded constitution and "pols lie" every time they feel slighted in the least about any opinion they find contrary.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Your really making a strong case for yourself with strawman after strawman here.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

You, on the other hand, are actively opressing them using the tools ofg government to do so.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I suppose that the messiah will CHANGE this on the 21st of next month with the open-mined and always loving Lib congress at his disposal.
and the seas will recede and the skies will clear and the wars will end and everyone will love America again.

you Libs are so dopey and gullible.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

A few more opinions:

"...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors....psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.""
- The American Psychiatric Association, 1994

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

never any substance to offer.

Posted by: kreuz_missile


that qualifies me to run for office as a Lib.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, always amusing, never any substance to offer.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz - what does the AMA have to say about your barnyard predilictions? just misunderstood?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"I choose to disagree, and instead of hearing my reaons and accepting them, they choose to just call everyone in America who disagrees, ignorant and intolerant."

NO. If you were simply disagreeing and saying you thought their lifestyle was wrong, that would be one thing. You, on the other hand, are actively opressing them using the tools ofg government to do so. THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. It's not about a difference of opinion, it's about the action you take as a result. Guess what, if you'd stop legislating against them, they'd probably stop "shoving their opinions down your throat" (great choice of words, btw).


-----------------------------------

milbrooks:

"It has been discredited so often that I am surprised that you would trot out that particular bit of nonsense again. Please, cite just one mainstream scientific finding that supports that. Everyone fully understands that homosexuality is a learned behavior, a choice. Period."

A contrary opinion:
As for the other naysayers here:

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."

- The American Medical Association, Jul 1994.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

simple simon and mikeb(igot) arguing about nonsense. What a delight. Let's see who can demonstrate the highesrt ignorance? It will be close.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks writes
"I've read that nonsense before. It has been discredited so often that I am surprised that you would trot out that particular bit of nonsense again. Please, cite just one mainstream scientific finding that supports that. Everyone fully understands that homosexuality is a learned behavior, a choice. Period."

Clearly, not 'everyone' 'understands' this. In my experience, most people that 'understand' this are told this in their churches, rather than actually conducting or referencing valid research.

BUT, even if that were not the case - if we grant you your fantasy that homosexuality is a choice - so what? There is zero impact on you if a random same sex couple marries, just as there is zero impact on you if a random opposite sex couple marries - or divorces. Why do you choose to treat the same sex couple differently?

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it is a slap in the face. Why did it have to be someone so extreme? There are plenty of good people who could give the invocation who would not cause actual heartache to millions of Americans.

Posted by: dyancollingsralph | December 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The stage of the inauguration program is as close as anyone with Rick Warren's views should get to a seat on the United States Supreme Court...

Posted by: JerryinLA | December 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"I have lots of gay freinds. We eat lunch together, work together, andare pretty tight. They know where I stand when it comess to gayness."

How is it that every extreme homophobe is surrounded with gay friends? Hell, I think Palin even tried this one.

I'm no racist, but I do think that all black people should be pre-emptively arrested. It's just a fact that they commit more crimes.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

.Re: "To win in the United States, you have to be a big tent party."

Obama won big without the support of right wing bigots. That's why I don't understand this decision.

The only thing I can think of is that Obama wants to send billions of our tax dollars to Africa and because the economy is so bad and that money should be spent here at home, he will need Warren to get his right-wing supporters to go along with it.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | December 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"I am no racist. I am however quite tired of these people forcing their lifestyle down my throat."

Of course you are a racist. You are fully aware that no one is trying to force his lifestyle down your throat. Yet you claim people are.

This is the EXACT same argument that people used when black people were fighting for equal rights. That to go to the same school as black people was to have them forced down their throats.

In fact, I have no problem with this being forced down the throats of racists. I hope they choke or learn to swallow.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Borgen Project has informative statistics on addressing global poverty.

$30 billion ends world hunger
$550 billion is the US Defense budget

This organization has the ability, resources, and policy-makers to suppress the threat of global poverty by enacting legislation here in the US, which is tied to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals. Please support organizations such as The Borgen Project so that we may rid the world of poverty.

Posted by: atsegga | December 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The only valid argument the GLBT can use against having Rick Warren deliver an invocation is the principle of separation of church and state. Their protest should call for the abolishment of any prayer, blessing or religious reference during the inaugural ceremony, including the "so help me God" from the oath.

Otherwise, they should face the fact that 90% of Americans (GLBTs included) believe in God and profess affiliation to some religious organization, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Rick Warren's views on homosexuality and abortion reflect the mainline position of these religions.

Mr. Warren, however, will not be invoking his views on inauguration day. So, who would be acceptable to the GLBTs ? Certainly no Roman Catholic priest or evangelical - not even Billy Graham - would pass their litmus test.

Posted by: MJR3 | December 18, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 - Sorry, I'm not into buggery. Look, you don't need to have a "secret" wish to avoid swimming in a cesspool to want to avoid it. The same thing applies to suicide, I suppose. I find homosexuality disgusting and unhealthy. It is, moreover, a huge and completely unnecessary social expense. If homosexuals want to live their lives unmolested, they are welcome o do so, but if they continue to try and inflict it on me, they will find they have made an enemy.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Given Obama's past history with sucking up to preachers,this latest move is part of the pattern,the kind of P.R. stunt he is so famous for,and getting into trouble, over and over again. He never seems to learn that mixing religion and state,is a very stupid,and dangerous policy. We had eight years of Holy Roller B.S.,enough already.
Magic Man Warren belongs in a "Cone of Silence" during this event.He can pray in silence with his buddy Mc Cain and the rest of his wing nut supporters
Whats next?how about Sarah Palins Witch Doctor blessing the millions of unwashed at the inauguration. Tom Cruise could read a few chapters of his favorite books. Lets have herds of sacred cows roam free on the mall.Maybe Ms Palin could do a sacrifice in honour of the new president involving a Turkey
While we are at it,lets add the final "Inclusive" touch; Governor Blagojevich can give the oath of office to Obama.
Perhaps we were expecting too much "Change". Or as the French say,"The more things change,the more they remain the same".

Posted by: jeromejmarkiewicz | December 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I do not think that there is anything wrong with this decision by the Inaugural Committee. It's a problem that the Democratic Party has been struggling with until about 2006 when they started winning elections again and the Republicans started loosing. To win in the United States, you have to be a big tent party. You have to acknowledge that while people like Rick Warren and his "flock" may have some principles that you disagree with, there are plenty of areas where you do agree, such as aid to the poor.

Despite the large victory that Obama won, there were a lot of people who voted for the other guy, and a significant block of those voters did so for social causes. I think that putting a high profile conservative evangelical on the dais sends a strong message to those voters that he wants to be their president too, and they might even think about voting for him next time around. It's a very tangible example of what he said in his victory speech about earning their trust.

I think that the Netroots are effective at influencing policy in this country, but let's face it, they are not much for electoral strategy. This is a centrist country and it is important to govern from the center and affect evolutionary change. There are much larger issues facing this country with gay marriage, the Republicans learned that lesson the hard way. The bulk of Americans have much bigger things on their mind. There are some vocal minorities on either side of the issue, which the rest of the country wants to see something done about the economy and health care to name two. This move is about building a bridge to a potentially disaffected group. The last 8 years have been a waste because of the lack of inclusiveness.

I think it's promising to see that Obama is willing to make symbolic inclusive gestures to build political capital to tackle some of the major challenges facing this country now.

I say this as a liberal and ardent supporter of homosexual's right to marry, not just have the same legal rights. Attitudes in this country are changing, but change doesn't come overnight.

Posted by: rosenblj | December 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 - I've read that nonsense before. It has been discredited so often that I am surprised that you would trot out that particular bit of nonsense again. Please, cite just one mainstream scientific finding that supports that. Everyone fully understands that homosexuality is a learned behavior, a choice. Period. No, I am all for allowing people to make that choice and live their lives as they see fit, but I certainly wont condone nor allow them to demand acceptance for it nor inflict it on a society that doesn't want it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I am no racist. I am however quite tired of these people forcing their lifestyle down my throat. I choose to disagree, and instead of hearing my reaons and accepting them, they choose to just call everyone in America who disagrees, ignorant and intolerant. Not So!. We know that gays justwant to be happyand love someone, have a family, BUT, we dont want the Government recognizing what is by the majority considered a sin and a freakish lifestyle. If it were as simple as the gay community atests to (civil rights, tolerance), they would have those rights by now, but instead, they have few, and are losing more, because MOST Americans dont want their kids thinking its OK. In fact, throughout te world, all religions and societies reject gay marraige. In this country, the majority votes wins the day, but gays want to continue to play after the game has been called. Their methods are to attack people with opposite opionions, and dismissing their rationale. They have their rationale, so why do they want to attack everyone elses? I have lots of gay freinds. We eat lunch together, work together, andare pretty tight. They know where I stand when it comess to gayness. You can do and be what you want, this is America, I respect that, BUT, respect my right to think youre nasty, and an abomination. I dont try to change them, they dont try to change me. Being gay is the illegal immigration of today. You may be here, but that doesnt mean we are going to close our eyes and say its ok. I for one, don want my kids thinking that being gay is natural or condoned. In nature, animals shy away from the freaks of nature, deformed, and those not meeting standard breed qualities. Humans, as with animals, shy away from the same factors as it applies to gay people. If you wre born that way, nature screwed up, and we shouldnt avoid you, but sure shouldnt officially say its normal.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"astanley and mibrooks just seem way too upset by gay rights. Usually people like that turn out to be gay themselves, the self-loathing variety."

Hence my question. They are certain being gay is a choice, thus they must have pondered that choice at some point.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"If someone gay walks outside, no one knows it until they profess it. To compare the two is an atrocity to history."

How about if they're Jewish? Can you always tell by looking? Was that the standard the Nazi's set?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

astanley and mibrooks just seem way too upset by gay rights. Usually people like that turn out to be gay themselves, the self-loathing variety.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a strong Obama supporter, however it is a horrible decision on his part to have Rick Warren giving the invocation. In no way does including people who hate, discriminate, and try to diminish the rights of others represent the ideal of inclusiveness. Recognizing multiple points of view is different from bigotry, hatred, racism and the denial of the rights of individuals that this country was founded upon.

It is obvious to me that our country continues to struggle fulfilling the ideals of the constitution as we continue to deny equal rights to those living within this county. I do not take inclusiveness to mean that anything and everything is okay. Violence is not okay, murder is not okay, hatred, bigotry, the denial of civil rights is not okay. I do not want to portray that holding onto such despicable values such as those is okay for our country.

I strongly believe that our county should focus on moving towards equality, respect, and dignity for all people. If there are individuals that live lives of preaching hatred I do not believe they should be accepted or congratulated for doing so.

I believe we can work together to change these views, however in no way should hatred be an acceptable standpoint to hold and preach on a national level. It certainly should not be a message that represents our country. It is a disgrace in my opinion to have Rick Warren provide the invocation.


Posted by: sipp1 | December 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Choosing to give some guy yur butt is not near the same as being of another race. These same lame defenses have been going on for years, and yet, across this country, people STILL reject this gay ("I was born that way") nonsense."

Yeah, they rejected nonsensical argumetns about giving blacks rights, giving women the right to vote, etc., for hundreds of years too. Didn't make them right. The gap is closing, and the issue will be dead in a decade at the rate the population is swinging in favor of gay rights. I wouldn't be surprised if CA overturns Prop 8 in the next election myself.

BTW, when did you chose to be straight? What would it take for me to convince you to have sex with someone the same gender? Surely, if being gay is a choice, you must feel that something out there would be a valid incentive to make you homosexual, right?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"As it is, Obama seems to be bending so far over ..."

Am I the only one who saw the irony and humor in this?

Posted by: gbooksdc | December 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow, all the racists are really coming out today. I guess its too cold for a astanley's klan meeting. Don't all the fires keep you warm, though?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of feeling betrayed: I gave Obama d**n near the max in the primary, and did I get an Inaugural invite? No! Did I get a calendar or a T-shirt? NO!! I got the chance to get a t-shirt or a calendar _if I donate still more money to the DNC_.

There's no buyer's remorse, because I got what I paid for: an end to Bush policies (sorry, John) and an end to Clintonian politics of division and accusation (at least until Webb Hubbell's kid runs). But there'll be no 2012 reprise for me. I'm done with him. I'm saving my money for Jerry Brown's next campaign for CA Gov.

Posted by: gbooksdc | December 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not (as his own words maintain) a "fierce advocate" of equality for gay people. He is a half-hearted and occasional one.

He has advocated equality (or contends he has; he doesn't support marriage equality) in a perfunctory fashion, and from time to time does something equal and opposite to dramatize just how in the tank for gay equality he absolutely is not.

Anybody who thought the "mistake" of inviting anti-gay "ex-gay" preacher Donnie McClurkin to entertain at an Obama rally in North Carolina wouldn't be repeated -- or that it was a mistake at all -- now knows better.

Like his inaugural plans, it was rather a calculated public insult to reassure homophobes that Obama doesn't really care for gay people very much. Both of these are Obama's Sistah Souljah moments towards the gay community.

The inaugural invocation will be given by a man who considers the unions of gay people to be exactly the same as the marriage of brother and sister, or the marriage of an adult to a ten year old.

In likening gay relationships to incest and child abuse, Warren is undoubtedly aware that those things are not only unsupported by marriage statutes, but illegal in themselves in virtually every state.

If he thinks gay relationships are morally identical, he presumably believes gay and lesbian relationships should be punishable by statute.

Obama never breathed a word of displeasure when his own voice was used on pro Proposition 8 ads denouncing gay marriage. Not only doesn't it bother him much that he should be thought to oppose any equality for gay people, he sometimes seems to create that impression on purpose, using the excuse of "inclusiveness."

Here he carefully includes -- not a preacher who opposes gay unions in moderate terms like his own -- but somebody who rails against gays and lesbians in exactly the same way as James Dobson.

Obama says he owes Warren this high profile honor because Warren entertained him at Saddleback, but if Warren were as openly anti-Semitic or racist as he is openly contemptuous of gay people, I wonder if Obama would have accepted an invitation from Warren, let alone tendered him one.

Inclusivity ends someplace. We don't include Klansmen or other white supremacists. We wouldn't invite a Jew-hating Farrakhan to deliver an invocation. I think Obama really would be fierce opponent of something like that.

Gays and lesbians are the last minority in America to see those who advocate their utter subjection under the law elevated to the highest status in the land.

Posted by: ducdebrabant | December 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Choosing to give some guy yur butt is not near the same as being of another race. These same lame defenses have been going on for years, and yet, across this country, people STILL reject this gay ("I was born that way") nonsense. I have nothing against their rights like anyone else, but to give them some special rights because they say so, NO??!!!!! You can love who you want, just dont expect everyone to officially condone it They lost in California, and everywhere else in the country. It seems to me that they should get the message..Most people think its a sick nasty sin, and dont want Government condoning it. You can adopt all the kids you want and call it a family, but that doesnt make it so. Charles Manson had a family too

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I think Warren is not an appropriate choice. There is a difference between being "inclusive" and not standing for any principles.

Chances go round. You meet the same people coming up that you meet going down. The Rick Warrens of the world will be no friends of Obama when (and he will) he meets political attack ala the Clinton impeachment. The Blogoyevich affair shows the GOP will base an attack against him on the slimmest of reeds. He really should be looking after those who put him where he is today.

Posted by: gbooksdc | December 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 writes
"Look, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, don't *choose* to be black or Jewish or Hispanic, but homosexual DO CHOOSE their lifestyle."

Of the gay people I know, and I know quite a few, there's not one I can think of who would choose to be gay. Every single one has struggled with their identity, some are still estranged from their families. To a person, every single one of them wants to be treated just like everybody else. They don't want special treatment.

If you think gay people are 'choosing' a lifestyle, you owe it to yourself to get out and meet some real gay people and cure yourself of your ignorance - which is the real choice in play here.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Correction: He shouldn't be expecting ...

Posted by: ksteve | December 18, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

This move in inviting a vocal opponent of gay rights to participate in the inaugural ceremonies is right in line with letting the independently-elected political enemy Joe Lieberman chair an important committee in the Senate. President-elect Obama doesn't seem to recognize who are his friends and who are his enemies and apparently believes, very erroneously, that he can make everyone his friend. Well, that's not the way life works. People who have done anything on the public stage in life are going to make enemies of those who disagree with whatever it is that they've done. People who try to play it down the middle in an effort to please everyone make enemies on both ends of the ideological spectrum. I suppose we'll eventually find out what kind of president Barack Obama really wants to be when he has to take positions on important issues and fill Supreme Court vacancies, but the signals he is sending now are a matter of some concern to some of us on the left. I hope the capitulation to Lieberman and the welcoming of Warren are not an indication of where he's going on issues. It's for sure I wouldn't want either of those people on the same stage with me. As it is, Obama seems to be bending so far over in an effort to appeal to those who didn't vote for him that he's in danger of doing a backward somersault. In my view, it's just not a flip worth taking. He's should be expecting rigid neocons or anti-gay bigots to support him. Hopefully, he can win on both policy matters as well as in elections without them on his side. Anyway, we'll find out eventually where he's going.

Posted by: ksteve | December 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not gay, but I'm sick of your attitude. Inequality under the law is the same thing whether it is based on race or sexual orientation. If some black people don't understand that then they need to be educated."

Exactly. Homophobia is the EXACT same thing as racism. I have no problem using the two terms interchangeably.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Look, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, don't *choose* to be black or Jewish or Hispanic"

Um, you're an idiot and a liar. Those are probably your better traits in light of your racism.

That being said, you do choose to be Jewish.

THAT being said, whether or not homosexuality is a choice has nothing to do with anything. Would it be ok to discriminate against vegetarians?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Comparing it to the black civil rights movement is an insult, and most blk people see it that way."

I'm not gay, but I'm sick of your attitude. Inequality under the law is the same thing whether it is based on race or sexual orientation. If some black people don't understand that then they need to be educated.

Warren actively campaigned to strip gay people of their rights, and he has no business at the inauguration. There will now be a stench hanging over the ceremony.

Shame on Obama.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | December 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

One gets a little sick of you gay right bigots attempting to foist yourselves off as just another downtrodden minority. Look, blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, don't *choose* to be black or Jewish or Hispanic, but homosexual DO CHOOSE their lifestyle. Only the most intellectually bankrupt spin doctor would even attempt to make a connection between real-genuine minorities and a group that chooses a lifestyle that is repulsive to a majority of the public. Everywhere "gay rights" and "gay marriage" has been on the ballot, it has lost overwhelmingly because of that. The attempts by activists in and on behalf of that community to stuff it down the public throat, to require acceptance, is both bankrupt and unacceptable.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

During the general election campaign, I spent several weekends canvassing in Virginia for Obama. The meeting place prior to hitting the streets was a house where a gay couple lived; they were kind, generous, helpful, and dedicated to electing Obama. Now Rick Warren, a homophobic preacher who compares their love to incest, is given a prominent role in Obama's inauguration. This is sad.

Posted by: consumer_dave | December 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It's a slap in the face to gays in America and is just more proof that there was no difference between the McCain and Obama when it comes to gays. For all of you gays who blindly vote democratic, take note. I would have rather had McCain in power (because you know where you stand), then someone who acts like they represent your interests when they don't.

Posted by: columbiaheights | December 18, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I am deeply saddened by the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, and I consider it a warning that an intolerance completely at odds with the president-elect's oratory may stain his administration's record.

If Warren believed that marriage between people of different races should be illegal, there would be absolutely no question of a role for him at any inauguration in the last fifty years. Denying the right to marry to same sex couples is fundamentally equivalent; look back at the arguments in favor of banning mixed race marriages and note the startling similarities with today's debate about same sex marriage.

Warren has, moreover, defended his stance on this issue in ways that strike me as blatantly hypocritical. He claims that it is an issue of free speech, stretching the implications of legal same sex marriage beyond the bounds of at least my imagination by claiming that it would threaten those who oppose same sex marriage with charges of hate speech. Yet he casually and deceptively bypasses the very forceful argument in favor of same sex marriage involving all the critical rights that a legal spouse holds in a legal marriage. This is rankly dishonest.

Nor is same sex marriage the only issue on which Warren holds and advocates pernicious views. There are many reasons that I would look elsewhere to find a voice to set the nation's spiritual direction.

I have great respect for the passion and dedication of America's evangelical Christians and other social conservatives. Warren is a charming and intelligent man. But his selection for this very important role suggests to me that tolerance, an American value of elemental importance, remains in these modern days a beleaguered and lonely ideal in the national landscape. Have we still not realized how very dangerous that is?

Posted by: OFJones | December 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama disapoints, again. Not content with appointing the Clinton woman and her considerable baggage to be Secretary of State, Obama has delivered a hard slap to the face of many of the liberals and gays who supported him so vociferously. Rick Warren,the smarmy megachurch pastor, is a false christian who is apparently looking to proselytize even more broadly. Obama would have been muich better served to have brought Pastor Wright back from the wilderness. Anyone with any real theological knowledge and understanding realized that if one listened to the entirety of Pastor Wright's talks, they were, though firey, much more firmly grounded in real Christianity than the saddle-bag fraud Warren.
Sadly, one must begin to reconsider whether Obama will foresake all of his liberal promises now that he has won the prize. The name for this would be selling out!

Posted by: MichaelStrafford | December 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It's absolutely a slap in the face to a constituency that supported Obama. Leaving aside the question of why there should be a religious part to a secular ceremony, what Obama has done with this pick is a craven sop to the religious right, to whom Obama owes nothing. Obama can talk about inclusion all he wants. This move excludes one of the parts of his base.

Posted by: deannaizme | December 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the not the President Elect of liberal America, or conservative America, or gay America, or straight America.

He chose the Pastor that represents a wider swath of citizens, gays are a minority.

Who would you have, Divine? to deliver the sermon?

If you want me to respect your right to be gay then respect my right to be straight.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Now you know why I wouldn't vote for the man! This is only the first of many 'surprises' the world will be seeing from Mr. Obama. Everyone thought that 'change' meant a good thing. What if it doesn't?! Our new president is very cunning at getting you to believe whatever it is YOU want to believe of him. Only Mr. Obama and his maker know for certain what is in his thoughts and what his true intentions are.

Posted by: taffyjunkmail | December 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Why limit Warren's selection to slapping the face of the LGBT community? I'm not in that community and I still feel insulted by Obama choosing Warren to speak at the inauguration.

Accepting policy compromise is a necessary part of governing. That's why I (and probably a number of other progressives) haven't been screaming over cabinet picks, or auto industry bailouts, or Iraq withdrawal hedges. We're smart enough to realize that you never get the entire loaf, so we'll take policies that average out to the lion's share.

But I expect the candidate I supported to send a message that he values all Americans. Rick Warren's assaults on the homosexual community are well documented. But what message does Warren send to the scientific community with his positions on stem cell research and "intelligent design." Even more basically, what about the idea that only Christians go to heaven? This is exclusivity on parade.

Going to Warren's church is about inclusiveness and demonstrates a willingness to engage in dialogue with people of opposing viewpoints. Inviting Warren to the inauguration is at best a cynical attempt to throw bones to the intolerant forces in our society. At worse, it reflects a genuine misunderstanding that centrist governing means accommodating intolerance.

Perhaps one day President Obama will regain my respect and support. But until his actions show he respects societal tolerance, I won't be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: hjackson05 | December 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Russell4America-" Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what rhetoric you wrap it in". This too is NONSENSE!! When gayness offends someones religion, its not bigotry to be against it. They are just as entitled to be tolerant or intolerant as the gays seem to think they are to be tolerated. This lack of patience and tolerance from gay people really exacerbates the problem. It comes across as if "we like same sex, if you dont agree, youre wrong'. This whole comment supports the writers views, while dismissing anyone elses. Thats the root of the gay movement problem. obama is right to let anyone speak, and let people define the message, and not focus on the messenger. .

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

If Rick Warren had been anti-Black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-any other minority other than gay, then he would not have been given a place at Obama's inaugural table because it would have been wrong to give such a person a platform in which to give validity to their bigotry. But since Warren is anti-gay, Obama tries to defend his choice by saying he wants to listen to differing viewpoints. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what rhetoric you wrap it in. If we are to use Obama's failed logic on this issue, then white supremacists should have a chair at Obama's inaugural table (but they won't because we know their positions on social issues are wrong, just as Rick Warren is wrong). Obama blew it with this one. It is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain that this is simply pandering to the radical religious whack jobs who have held this country hostage, via the Bush regime, for the last 8 years. With this most egregious of decisions, Obama has flushed his credibility down the toilet. This is not change we can believe in. This is just more of the same garbage that gay people have had to deal with the last 8 years. And it stinks. Obama benefitted greatly from gay people's, their friends', and their families' financial donations and their votes (including financial donations and vote from this gay person). And how are we repaid? We are thrown under the bus. The hearts and minds of a huge segment of the U.S. population are lost by such a purely political maneuver, and we cannot be one people/one country because of it. Here's hoping Obama wises up. If he wants to fix this country, he's going to need everyone's involvement, and right now, gays, their families, and friends are feeling like their involvement in cleaning up this country is neither wanted nor desired. Not a good message. Not a good way to begin Obama's presidency. Not good at all. And there's no excuse for it.

Posted by: Russell4America | December 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Look, everyone knows that evangelical replublican ideology is at odds with reality.

Let's just say that Obama is the bigger man (Isn't it obvious anyway?) and that evangelicals who cling to the literal translation of the bible crafted by Constantine's edit job (Yes evangelicals - the blood thirsty Constantine edited your bible - go look up some history in the library) are in for a cold awakening that faith has nothing to do with denying science or reality in the community.

Let Warren speak and give Obama credit for being bigger that anyone who complains about the choice of Warren, or anyone who hates gay marriage.

We've got bigger fish to fry than Rick Warren...

Posted by: onestring | December 18, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

noahthek-"but it also means the president-elect will need to regain the trust of the gay community and its supporters". WHO NEEDS YOUR TRUST? If it is so easily lost, why bother? Besides, the gay and lesbian community in the political realm, means SQUAT!!! The far vast majority of Americans dont agree with you at all. If gays can get the righst they want, more power to them, but, this petty sniping is getting them nowhere.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Some of the posts on this thread are amazing, I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Hillary, I voted for you because you have always been courageos about "the little things" i.e. women rights, children rights, gay rights, and religious tolerance.

Hillary, you have an opportunity to stand up again and speak about this invocation. Can you truly can speak truth to power? Now is the time.

I did not vote for Mr. Obama because something did not seem right. I am beginning to see problems such as General Shinseki's passivity toward gays being discharged from the Army and now being in charge of the VA or take Sen. Salazar's views on the drilling and mining on public lands and his appointment.

I think we just got another politician.

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The world as a whole must be on alert otherwise homosexuals will hijack the society and make life extremely miserable for all those who refuse to join them in yielding to the ungodly desires of having same-sex sexual relations. The Bible details examples of their extreme intolerance and violence, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being the obvious one. Of course these cities ended up being destroyed by God Himself through Fire and Brimstone.

Posted by: TennysonKpohraror | December 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Thatsnuts: "He has the same right to believe what he wants as anyone else. Don't like some of what he says, take what you like and leave the rest" Exactly!!!! Gays and lesbians dont want to hear anything that isnt in tune with their agenda (stifling free speech). Comon folks, this is after all AMERICA!! If you disagree with the guy, that doesnt mean he wont give a good speech/sermon. Take it for what its worth and dismiss the rest. HE IS A HUMAN BEING, NOT THE DEVIL.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted to be inclusive, he should have invited a Rabbi, Imam, and leaders of all other religions too. But that would be too politically risky. Politics, not inclusiveness, reign supreme.

Posted by: SW-DCWaterfront | December 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If this was really "another example of [Obama's] belief that now is a time to be inclusive rather than exclusive."

Wouldn't it have shown more courage to have Warren share the stage with an openly gay member of the clergy, maybe Gene Robinson?

Equal rights for the gay community is a long way away, but the road begins when we stop pandering to the religious hate, fear and homophobia that's out there. We no longer excuse racial and gender discrimination under the guise of religious freedom and I hope in my lifetime we will also stop excusing homophobia.

With that said, I do think this shows a a great amount of courage on Obama's part, but it also means the president-elect will need to regain the trust of the gay community and its supporters.

Posted by: noahthek | December 18, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Just amazing, the posts on this thread. We elected a candidate who ran on change. Lets take a quick look at changes already very noticable. First, he has named most of his cabinet before his innauguration. Second, he has a very diverse and multicultural cabinet. Third, he is already, so to speak, on the ground running. These things are not insignificant changes from our American history.

Now, he does something different by inviting Rick Warren to give a prayer, benediction whatever during the innauguration. Yes, Warren can be "labeled" as a right wing christian, so what. He has the same right to believe what he wants as anyone else. Don't like some of what he says, take what you like and leave the rest.

If people think this incoming President can be summed up in a political phrase I think they delude themselves.

I think everyone should sit down, take a deep breath and relax. The man will stand up at the appointed time and say a prayer for America and our new President. GET OVER IT.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | December 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Another mistake by gays and lesbians. Comparing it to the black civil rights movement is an insult, and most blk people see it that way. If someone walks outside and they are blk, no doubt. If someone gay walks outside, no one knows it until they profess it. To compare the two is an atrocity to history. Gays dont have seperate water fountains and facilities. Throughout their quest for equality, they ave consistenly chosen to attack on Grounds of tolerance (while being intolerANT THEMSELVES). in addition, they have used comparisons that no one buys. get a new message.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

vast majority of the country (70%) is against both.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

the problem with you Libs is that you have no moral foundation whatsoever. you do whatever it takes to gain power and line your pockets. the philosophy of right and wrong never enters into it. Obama never considers the issue of the right thing to do, only what will get him votes, donations, admiration, power. the pandering during the election was a clear signal of this. now we are in the governing by empty promises stage. It was pre-determined to be a major let down.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican. And an atheist.

While you're trying to absorb that, I'll also mention I favor legal recognition of gay marriage.

Just so's you know where I'm coming from.

I think this is hilarious.

Warren will deliver a standard, plain-vanilla invocation that very few Christians would argue with. His moment on the national stage will last a couple of minutes and be promptly forgotten, save by what I call the PICOs (Perpetually Indignant, Chronically Outraged).

Y'all are furious and indignant with Obama for that.

Meanwhile, Obama listened to a pastor preach race hatred, anti-semitism, and hatred of America for twenty years, and when y'all found out, your reaction was a massive and collective shrug.

It is clear that you have no problem with bigotry as long as it's not directed at you.

I recommend you read from the book of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 3-5:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Posted by: gilbertbp | December 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If being inclusive is the goal, then our President-elect misunderstands the meaning of the word. Being inclusive means including gay men and lesbians within the right to be included within the idea of marriage, supported by the Supreme Court of California. By choosing Rick Warren to give such a high profile "invocation," Obama invokes the idea of the exclusion of gay men and lesibans in mainstream life. If Obama truly cares about "mainstreet" Americans, then he must care about the actual lives of gay men and lesbians and how his choice of Rick Warren harms us. Inclusion cannot be chosen at the expense of exclusion.

Posted by: danibend | December 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Which special rights, exactly?

Posted by: kreuz_missile


sheep's rights, you know you prefer them.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama said it best in his book:

"I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

The Audacity of Hope

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Gays and lesbians will never be the voting block that ANY politician depends on. To those who say "we got him here", you are quite mistaken. To those who say "i will block his campaign emails", go for it. Those are sure fired ways to advance the gay agenda. face it, ANY candidate that stands up and says "I will approve gay marraige", is doomed. Any candidate who says we should give gays full rights is doomed. The vast majority of the country (70%) is against both. The gay movement is crying the blues already, and Obama has yet to make a polcy decision. Gays and lesbians are not a voting block that any politician can use as a a base to get elected, so go ahead and conduct your little protests. While the media might enjoy the spectacle, while the majority of Americans will think that Obama is right when he opposes any new gay rights. Obama may be on to something. If gays and lesbians are going to be such fair weather and fickle freinds, why not play to some other base of support? I mean, come on, a guy givesa prayer, and suddenly the gays are up in arms, before the first policy decision? They better learn to pick their battles. If you cant take no for an answer sometimes, guess what, the answer in life is mostly NO. Gays better pick a policy hill to die on and stand firm there, but this isnt it. Otherwise, next time, vote for the Republican. Hmm, how did that work out for you last time??

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

California has spoken, Obama has spoken... gays need to deal with it and move on.

Posted by: Jumpy66


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

civil rights are not subject to a vote. they are guaranteed.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Obama for continuing to reach toward the middle ground and the mainstream electorate. California has spoken, Obama has spoken... gays need to deal with it and move on.

Posted by: Jumpy66 | December 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Intellectually, I understand the pick. It is both good politics and it fits with the theme of inclusiveness. Nonetheless, it does feel like a kick in the stomach, especially at a time when the GLBT community and its allies are feeling raw over Prop 8 in California. Ultimately, I think the move is just too cute by half. Obama knows that social liberals will not abandon him. However, it is hard not to notice that "inclusiveness" tends to come at our expense. This is the kind of gesture that people remember when they decide between staying in bed on a cold morning, or getting out to campaign.

Posted by: MonitaJB | December 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

As the Rod Blagojevich scandal continues to unfold, it’s worth recalling that Democrats in 2006 -led by Representative Rahm Emanuel- ran on the theme that they would end “the culture of corruption.” Indeed, Emanuel, in dismissing wrongdoings by Democrats at the time, explained them away as simply the actions of a few individuals. About Republicans, Emanuel said, “They have institutional corruption.” The argument put forth was that Democrats would bring ethics and high standards to public office and that the Democratic Party would embody integrity and police its ranks.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way.

As the sportscaster Warner Wolf used to say, let’s go to the videotape. In 2008 alone, we have the arrest of Democratic Governor Blagojevich on charges of public corruption, which include trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. Former Democratic Representative William Jefferson, a nine-term incumbent, lost his seat in Louisiana because of corruption charges, including allegations that he took bribes -of which $90,000 were allegedly found in his freezer during an FBI raid- from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. Tim Mahoney, the Democrat who succeeded Republican Mark Foley after the latter resigned due to a sex scandal, lost his seat when he, Mahoney, became embroiled in a sex scandal of his own. Former Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace after he was caught up in a call girl operation. Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel is now under investigation for reportedly helping to retain a multimillion-dollar tax loophole for an oil drilling company at the same time that the company’s CEO was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School for Public Service at City College of New York. Also, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick resigned as part of a plea bargain in which he pled guilty to two felonies for obstruction of justice.

Democrats seem to be doing a rather fine job at building on a culture of corruption rather than ending it.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

astanley1, using your logic, Mr. Lincoln had a lot of nerve freeing those slaves as did the Supreme Court in Brown v. Topeka giving those uppity blacks the right to go to school with white children.

Your concrete thinking, and your not alone, behold the comment section, gave this country its greatest hits. So sad.

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Which special rights, exactly?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Again, i would say that Obama has not gone back n any promises. By choosing who you want to have sex with, why should society give you any special rights? the gay community is just as nasty and obnoxious as the religious and societal wingnuts they rage against. If you disagree with them, ATACK! If you say you dont think its right, and ATTACK!! These guys and gals think that their preference (not a right) is something they can IMPOSE on people. Thats not tolerance, thats force. Americans in general dont like being forced to do anything.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"I would worry more about your moniker, given by your barnyard lover no doubt. a good goat will do that."

Talking from experience again?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"This is yet another example that he doesn't care about who got him here. I'm completely disillusioned. I'm going to block his campaigns emails as junk mail. I absolutely don't want to be snookered any more. What's Obama got left to offer liberals?"

Exactly what he promised when he emerged on the national stage in 2004, when he announced his candidacy, and what he talked about all throughout the campaign; not a liberal America or a Conservative America, but the United States of America. He never hid who he was or what he would do in office, you just apparently chose not to pay attention.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

OK, let's take bets on this -- which of these two absurd suggestions will first dissipate entirely? And how long will it take for all but the most unhinged of amateur pundits to forget about both?

A) Obama was in cahoots with Rod Blagojevich all along despite all the evidence to the contrary, and every Democrat and member of the media knows about it but won't tell.
B) Obama secretly hates the gays, proved by his decision to give a guy who's said some nasty things about homosexuality an oh-so-brief moment of recognition.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"But it is disappointing to see him react so quickly to the justifiable criticism by defending his choice, instead of being willing to "listen" to his critics and even possible admit that he made a mistake. I thought that was going to be a key difference between President-elect Obama and President Bush."

Oh give me a break. What's wrong with the concept of defending a decision? Listening to your critics doesn't mean you just do whatever they tell you to do.

God, people are such idiots.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering how you got the title...

Posted by: kreuz_missile


I would worry more about your moniker, given by your barnyard lover no doubt. a good goat will do that.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"If the messiah still can't bring himself to admit he was in error on the SURGE, an obvious one in retrospect, how do you expect him to ever admit to any errors? especially this one, if it is indeed an error?"

He wasn't an error, the body count isn't a valid metric for success, the stability of Iraq and our ability to leave is the metric, and we aren't much closer to that since we still have more troops there today than we did before the surge started.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I personally could care less about the gay issue, with the exception of this: Obama has reached out to every constituency out there with the exception of the liberal base that provided the funding and the energy that propelled him to victory. This is yet another example that he doesn't care about who got him here.

I'm completely disillusioned. I'm going to block his campaigns emails as junk mail. I absolutely don't want to be snookered any more. What's Obama got left to offer liberals?

Posted by: keilprti1 | December 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"You dont change minds by attacking the root of our country, which, love it or leave it, RELIGION"

Funny, I missed that part of the Constitution.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

If the messiah still can't bring himself to admit he was in error on the SURGE, an obvious one in retrospect, how do you expect him to ever admit to any errors? especially this one, if it is indeed an error?

the messiah is perfect, or haven't you heard?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 - "These dweebs are NO DIFFERENT, just as underhanded, just as delussional and paranoid, as any right wing clodhopper". I would agree. Obama has been clear on this issue. he and biden are against gay marraige, and he has said as much. Did gays think they were buying something by voting for Obama? the fact is that most supported Hillary (ANOTHER LOSER). I am sure of one thing. People shouldnt take every cabinet selection, or decision as a policy position, or change in direction. Gay marraiage is banned in all but what, 3 states? Policy eminates from obama, so wy not lets not take one prayer as a sign of treason? Gays will never have full rights and marraige in this country, and most of the free world..FACT!!!! Most people se it as nasty and repulsive. You dont change minds by attacking the root of our country, which, love it or leave it, RELIGION

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Kreuz - I am pretty sure you think that sheep consented. why else would it push back?"

You know way too much about that sort of thing, I was wondering how you got the title...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Inclusive of what - retreads and retards?"

By which I assume you mean "Republicans," which is a promise he made during the campaign...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz - I am pretty sure you think that sheep consented. why else would it push back?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Whatever President-elect Obama's reason for selecting Mr. Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural, there is a certain tone-deafness to the choice.

Subtly is not lost on people that wish to deprive others of their civil rights.

Mr. Obama would do well to reconsider his choice if for no other purpose than to realize, and show that he realizes, that he made a "boneheaded" decision and walk it back.

There are huge foreign policy implications for this choice and they do not bode well for homosexuals. In many counties all that is needed for human rights abuses is a tacit excuse and I am afraid Mr. Obama may have given that excuse legitimacy.

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Is having sex with a sister you love no different, or a child? What about their rights?"

YEs, a HUGE difference. Consent and free will are the main issues (consent not so much with the sister, but with other forms of incest for sure).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Inclusive cabinet.

What do I win?

Posted by: bsimon1


Inclusive of what - retreads and retards?

considering your situation, I award you counting lessons. try to get past 100.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Hmmm, let's see the good people express themselves. When did they choose to be straight?"

You know, this whole thing about choosing to be gay is such a red herring. It's like telling a gay person, "you are sick and screwed up individual who is a degenerate. However, I support your right to marriage because you didn't CHOOSE to be so sick and degenerate."

That's just nonsense. Gay marriage should be allowed even if homosexuality were a conscious decision.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

As with many other commenters, I too agree that this is poor judgment on Obama's part. As the candidate of "inclusion", it is puzzling that he not only could not see the obvious contradiction in inviting Rev. Warren, a man who is completely comfortable with "exclusion", to participate in an official capacity in a historic event of such magnitude. But it is disappointing to see him react so quickly to the justifiable criticism by defending his choice, instead of being willing to "listen" to his critics and even possible admit that he made a mistake. I thought that was going to be a key difference between President-elect Obama and President Bush. Oh well, he's smarter than the rest of us so he must be right.......right?

Posted by: stevel3 | December 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

You heterosexual bigots are so, so easy to flush out:)

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"When did they choose to be straight?" most people dont buy this quakery!!! To say "poor me, I was born this way as an act of nature" is nonsense. I dont care if gays get married, but to use this unsubstantiated BS as evidence is a real turn off. The facts are that man is an animal, and nature doesnt make mistakes like that. Show me a gay girraffe, a dog, anything..Its just gays saying its so. Warren has a right to speak out on it from a religious standpoint, but I am sure he wont do so during the inauguration. Its JUST a prayer.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Gays are to conservatives and religious nuts what Jews were to Hitler. The more you attack religion, and people of faith, the more evidence yu give them that you are just as intolerant that ."

I'd say that puts the gays on the right side of history.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Any minute now you're going to hear rumors from the homosexual radicals that Obama isn't a native born U.S. citizen or that he surrender his citizenship. Same for Rick Warren. These dweebs are NO DIFFERENT, just as underhanded, just as delussional and paranoid, as any right wing clodhopper.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does there even need to be a benediction at the inauguration in the first place? Church and state are legally separate in this nation, last time I checked the law.

So if there has to be one, get Rev. Barry Lynn to do it. Warren is a right-wing tool wolf in sheep's clothing. Then again, most fundoid preacher screecher creatures are...

Posted by: Tannim123 | December 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Continue" to be an advocate - or, as he said in another comment, a "fierce advocate"?

Obama has done little in his short career to suggest any interest at all in helping LGBTQ Americans achieve equal rights. In fact, his policy positions are precisely against that.

He has also done little to suggest that he cares about courting the gay vote. He is a politician, and would rather attract moderates than alienate them by actually taking a stand on something.

Posted by: cprach | December 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"The reason they don't get rights is because they have sex in the butt".
I would only say that Warren has a right to be against you having rights just because you have sex in the butt. Is having sex with a sister you love no different, or a child? What about their rights? The gay movement has been on a tangent about religion lately, and seek to silence anyone who opposes them. That simply will not work in this country. As far as giving him a national stage, many people gave Bush a stage, and there are certainly many gay Republicans. I am simply saying that gays are attacking the wrong people, when they shouldnt be attacking at all.They will never trump religion, although I belive religion has been highjacked by idiots for their own purposes. Gays are to conservatives and religious nuts what Jews were to Hitler. The more you attack religion, and people of faith, the more evidence yu give them that you are just as intolerant that .

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Shrill" and "hissy fit"?
Hmmm, let's see the good people express themselves. When did they choose to be straight?

I guess if you give a forum such as the invocation to someone that preaches exclusion of gay rights, that is a great message to send to the homophobic middle east.

This should show everyone that there is not much difference between the intolerant religious right in this country and the intolerant religious zealots in Islam, etc.

They are truly cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

With all his smarts, Obama must realize that Rick Warren set him up during the first debate.
Think back! When the Rev.Warren asked McCain about wealth, his answer was 5 Million a year, when Warren pressed McCain for a explanation the maverick said "dont put me on the spot" the Rev.did not put him on the spot. It was also revealed at a later date that McCain was not in a sound proof room. Shame on Big money Rev.Warren

Posted by: scac1 | December 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"The President-elect's request that Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation is neither a slap in the face to the gay community or a shining example of inclusiveness. President-elect Obama asked Warren to offer a prayer on a day of great importance to the President-elect. It would be a very different story if Obama asked Warren to create social policy for the new administration."

Really.

it is both a slap in the face, and an illuminating lie of inclusion.

Think there would be some hubbub if he had asked ole Reverend Wright to give the invocation?

He kicks out his pastor of 20 years for being "hateful" toward America.

Yet Warren... he's fine.

Where's the big tent??

Posted by: Greent | December 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If LGBT members want to pick a fight with obama over this, fine. They voted in far larger numbers for Al Gore. If I were they, I would find the positions and policy I want, and focus on that. Like most politicians, if Obama thinks he has lost their support, why bother? You finally get a President who says he is for them being equal under the law, and they pitch a hissy fit about a speech. Give me a break!!!. This shrill pro gay nonsense doesnt change anyones mind, and alienates most people

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, I would rather have a republican that dismisses gays and makes no pretense about it than a huckster like Obama."

You guys don't get it, he's giving him a symbolic role that will enable him to guard his right flank, allowing him room for some substantive movement in your direction later.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Lets see if I have this right..Gays and lesbians want to be included, and want people to change their minds and be tolerant. In fact, they attack anti-gay religious leaders as being intolerant. In doing so, they want to practice exclusion of any opposing viewpoint? You cant have it both ways. Religious people have the right to oppose their lifestyle, and silencing them is just as unAmerican as the taking of rights the are protesting against. The reason they cant get rights is that they are just as shrill and hatefull as the people they complain about."

No one is talking about denying anyone rights to free speech. We are talking about denying a government sponsored national stage for this person. He can do whatever the hell he wants with that huge, bigoted megaphone he has the rest of the time.

And the reason they don't get rights isn't because of being shrill. The reason they don't get rights is because they have sex in the butt.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

astanley1, no one is talking about outlawing Rick Warren's lifestyle or enacting legislative mechanisms to opress him, they are talking about not rewarding him with a key role in the inauguration. Big difference that even you should understand. It's an argument that has been tried before, to dismal results.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to really show inclusion then he should also invite Bishop Gene Robinson (the openly gay Episcopal Bishop from NH) to give a invocation as well.

Inclusion means including both sides, not just the bigots.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

one poster wrote: "This is a brilliant move by Obama. Who are gays going to vote for in 2012, the rightwingnut Republican nominee?"

Yes, I would rather have a republican that dismisses gays and makes no pretense about it than a huckster like Obama. At least I know which hand the dagger is in. And Hillary, if you don't pull out of the cabinet now and go back to the senate, I guess us gays will have to vote in the other party (remember Reagan?)

Posted by: jdh3 | December 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

the tiny answer is, you don't appease bigots.

the grand answer is, you don't encourage demagogues who believe in religion-based government. christ said, "render unto caesar what is caesar's" — i.e., stay out of politics. don't take over government and start dishing out your own warped version of "divine justice." we're not designed to be a theocracy, remember? it's formally against the rules — i.e., the constitution.

obama's decision to elevate rick warren is bad news for the primacy of secular law in the united states. "annoint" i could have said. very, very weak.

Posted by: heartfield | December 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Lets see if I have this right..Gays and lesbians want to be included, and want people to change their minds and be tolerant. In fact, they attack anti-gay religious leaders as being intolerant. In doing so, they want to practice exclusion of any opposing viewpoint? You cant have it both ways. Religious people have the right to oppose their lifestyle, and silencing them is just as unAmerican as the taking of rights the are protesting against. The reason they cant get rights is that they are just as shrill and hatefull as the people they complain about. You will NEVER force gay acceptance down peoples throats, and will never silence people who disagree (many do, according to Prop 8, and thats just Clifornia). This is after all a Christian nation, not a gay one.

Posted by: astanley1 | December 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"He was proposing a solution, not stating a condition. Its a variant of the argument that the gov't should get out of the marriage business entirely - eliminate the word from documents in favor of language that recognizes state-sanctioned unions in order to enjoy benefits now enjoyed by marrieds (and often denied same-sex couples)."

Oh, ok. I misread what he said. I'm in favor of this as well.

The problem is that I don't buy for a second that this is about preserving the sanctity of marriage. That may be the justification used, but this is nothing more than an attempt to trample on the rights of a group of people. How many of these people turn around and say that gay people are incapable of raiding children or can't serve in the military?

Don't believe this is about preserving tradition. It's not.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Please...all Obama is doing is pandering to the Religious Right with this token appearance by Warren. He'll do some appearances with him in the next couple of years to show how "inclusive" he is even though he won't push any of Warren's beliefs into policy. It's all just for show.

I don't agree with Warren on pretty much everything but its not like Obama is giving the guy his own office in the West Wing. I think Obama will end up doing a lot for the LGBT community and while he could have chosen any other number of Evangelical ministers who weren't homophobic, it will be a forgotten issue in a few months.

Posted by: around | December 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Still offering the award to anyone who can find a promise the messiah has kept..."

Inclusive cabinet.

What do I win?

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The Left defines itself as "inclusive" and defines the Right as "exclusive". However, in order for an event to be considered "inclusive", it must exclude impurities like "excluders", meaning anyone non-Left. Therefore, TRUE inclusiveness requires excluision.

It's a bit convoluted, you may have to read that a few times to get it. :-)

Posted by: ZZim | December 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Inclusive? Racial bigots are prohibited; anti-LGBT bigots are tolerated.

Posted by: redthink | December 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"Does anyone know if this is true? I'm certain that it isn't."

He was proposing a solution, not stating a condition. Its a variant of the argument that the gov't should get out of the marriage business entirely - eliminate the word from documents in favor of language that recognizes state-sanctioned unions in order to enjoy benefits now enjoyed by marrieds (and often denied same-sex couples). Let the religious groups call define marriage for themselves. From the state's perspective, the only relevant issues are legal: things like power of atty, issues of assumed privilege, rights of visitation (hospitals, etc) & estate law.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, the politics of it. Obama's numbers began a real upturn after Warren forum, and this is a way to show his appreciation for it.

Think Obama would have done this if he had blown that appearance?

The politics of inclusion is nothing more than the politics of dividing the opposition's base.

Posted by: Rogermurdock | December 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"CIVIL UNIONS RECOGNIZED IN ALL 50 STATES WHICH PRESCRIBE ALL THE SAME SECULAR RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES."

Does anyone know if this is true? I'm certain that it isn't.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"The President-elect's request that Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation is neither a slap in the face to the gay community or a shining example of inclusiveness."

Look, being inclusive of Christianity is NOT the same thing as being inclusive of homophobia. There are plenty of evangelicals who are supportive of gay rights. Why not take one of them? I know Obama is in favor of gay rights, but, you know, words matter. The words of Warren matter.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

This is a brilliant move by Obama. Who are gays going to vote for in 2012, the rightwingnut Republican nominee?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren is to bigotry what soft-porn is to the real thing. Both are rather disgusting. It may be "inclusive" to have Warren representing religious intolerance and unreason give the invocation. And certainly there are intolerant bigots among Americans and they too, I suppose, deserve representation even if most of them supported the Republicans. Whatever the spin, this choice is a mistake and will be not inappropriately read as an justification for continued intolerance against gays, narrowness of view towards women, and a dogma-based approach to medical science.

Posted by: orray | December 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Look, millions of Evangelical Christian's VOTED for Obama, campaigned for him! In the Eugene (Oregon) campaign headquarters I witnessed regular prayer circles by campaign workers, prior to their going to knock on doors. Don't those people deserve their opinions as to gay marriage?"

No.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Is the anger in regards to the Christian term marriage's definition, or in regards to the multiple secular rights that two people gain in such a union.

Many Evangelicals, feel that the term is religious in conception, and conotes God's blessing on a union between man and woman.

Thus the argument that Government cannot re-define religious terminology is legitimate to a degree, BUT:

Many like myself, feel that the outrage is in regards to the secular rights that a couple gains through either a civil or religious union, therefore the unification rights themselves as determined legally are secular, and civil in nature not religious, they are legislative policies defined and supported by secular governments. The definition is religious in nature, the rights gained are secular, so the same separation of chruch and state argument supports both perspectives.

Simple solution that doesn't encroach on anyones faith or rights.

CIVIL UNIONS RECOGNIZED IN ALL 50 STATES WHICH PRESCRIBE ALL THE SAME SECULAR RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE POLICIES WHICH ENDORSE A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS PERSUASION OVER ANOTHER OR THE LACK THEREOF

Fight to win people not just to be heard, we finally have a pragmatist in the Whitehouse, be pragmatic not emotional and egotistical, and we will win this fight in 2 years time.

Posted by: ProudSouthernAmerican | December 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama is dumping on his friends for political gain. Nothing new here. He is a politician after all. Lets wait to see how much of of the "gay agenda" (ie equality) he advances before the LGBT "community" feel too betrayed. IF Obama gets rid of DOMA "dont ask dont tell" etc then i suspect many in the "community" will very quickly forget how upset they are.

Still. Not sure why inclusion has to include those that compare gay people to pedophiles...

Posted by: the_skilled99 | December 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The President-elect's request that Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation is neither a slap in the face to the gay community or a shining example of inclusiveness. Matters of faith and religion, and the decisions that surround them, are deeply personal. President-elect Obama asked Warren to offer a prayer on a day of great importance to the President-elect. It would be a very different story if Obama asked Warren to create social policy for the new administration.

Posted by: sammyrehnquist | December 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I fear that leaders in the gay rights movement once again have made a poor choice of enemies. Obama promised all along that his would be an inclusive administration that brought Americans together. You can't get there by excluding everyone that your allies deem insufficiently committed to their cause. If liberal activists can't find a way to sit at the same table as Rick Warren then America really is in as much peril from the left as the right under George W. Bush.

Posted by: SW-erner | December 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

President-Elect Obama doesn't seem to realize that the church, more than any other institution in America, has led bigotry against LGBT people. The recent fight in Calfornia over Proposition 8 is an example. So his selecting an anti-gay pastor is in no way the same as selecting, say, a government official who shares these views. Since many LGBT people are devout Christians, this has been particularly painful for them.

Of course many churches supported antimiscegenation laws as well, under which his own parents' marriage would have been illegal. Would he invite one of these pastors to give his invocation? I think not. Just how big is his tent?

Posted by: skarakashian | December 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Well said, ProudSouthernAmerican.

Of particular note, I think, was the part about the incoming cabinet members who happen to be gay. Really, I would think a gay person in such a high political position would be more important than a guy with anti-gay views having a semi-prominent role for one day.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Does he really want to pick a fight with the left in the midst of a tricky transition and the Blago scandal? No more headaches, right? GLBT protesters at the inauguration won't look very nice...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

This is ridiculous!

There is a divide on this issue in this country, believe it or not and the President Elect has stated his position, be happy the President is the one who agrees with you, me and our liberal friends on this issue of gay rights! Would you rather it be the other way around, and your guy be a pro-gay rights pastor giving the address for a anti-gay rights President Elect, I imagine not!

So, get the chip off your shoulders, so we can change policy to respect the individual rights of all, and let the Warrens of the world have their opinions, this is America. Since when did symbols become more important that the actual policies.

You may have elected President Obama, but he's not just your president, if you want the progressive version of the decider, you shouldn't have voted for him, we elected a pragmatist who will rightly govern the entire country, not just blacks, gays, anti-war demonstrators, pro choice voters, etc. That's what "W" did and look where it got us. Believe it or not there are millions of evangelicals in this country, who disagree with homosexuality, adultery, fornication, bearing false witness, lying cheating, stealing, etc, but don't agree with the conscripting of religious dogma into secular policy. Cheating, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness(in court)are secular crimes also, and thus punishable by criminal law, but many Christians believe that an individual's personal sin agaisnt God does't fall within the purview of secular Governmental policy or legislation (The separation of church and state).

Some of the people who probably wouldn't wouldn't endorse your cause, will still fight for your rights as individual Americans, they may try to minister to you in the process, but that's their right, respect it, if you want yours respected, this is America.

This is childish, the President elect has selected 2 openly gay and highly competent cabinets members, when has that happened before? This is a progressive president and his policies will be as well, he is a consensus builder, so let him do what he does without the somewhat justified alienating venom and anger, no one wants to amend to religious definition of marriage, resonable people just want to have the more than 200 spousal rights that other Americans enjoy, even Sarah Palin agrees with that.

You have a right to speak out, just make sure your helping your cause and not just your ego.

Posted by: ProudSouthernAmerican | December 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Jayne - your comparing Evangelicals to Nazi's speaks volumes about the intolerance, bigotry, and dangers of radical gay rights nuts. You and your ilk have removed themselves from from mainstream discourse on this issue. A lot of people, moral people, decent people, political liberals and moderates who are far more responsible for the election of Obama than a ragtag collection of homosexual right radicals, happen to think that gay marriage is an abomination and perverted. Those same people would never condone violence against gays, would work to see that such acts are punished immediately. But that isn't enough for you. You apparently want some sort of law that demands complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and will punish anyone who doesn't think that. I would submit that you and your ilk are the Nazi's.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Still offering the award to anyone who can find a promise the messiah has kept...

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I happen to support "gay rights" (for now!) and am extremely troubled by the gay community's reaction to this. Their blathering smacks of censorship and the very sort of bigotry they accuse Mr. Warren of. Rick Warren is an Evangelical Christian pastor. All he represents is the biblical view of homosexuality as a sin. Period. It appears that some of the more radical homosexual leaders wan to ban Christianity, or, at least, outlaw the Evangelical understanding and teaching of the Bible. Their reaction is flat out disgusting and they deserve to be swatted down! Look, millions of Evangelical Christian's VOTED for Obama, campaigned for him! In the Eugene (Oregon) campaign headquarters I witnessed regular prayer circles by campaign workers, prior to their going to knock on doors. Don't those people deserve their opinions as to gay marriage?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

If Obama truly wants to be inclusive, I look forward to seeing him invite members of the American Nazi Party and the KKK to his ceremony. Until he does so, I am livid at this insult to the members of the public that worked so hard to elect him. I donated time and money for Obama's campaign and I am devastated that he has turned on his supporters before he's even inaugurated. As HRC said: "Shame on you, Barack Obama. Shame on you."

Posted by: Jayne | December 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Back to the scandel a week clinton years:

The Public's Questions on the Blagojevich Scandal Need to Be Answered

Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson's unwillingness to answer any questions from reporters after word broke of a grand-jury investigation about pay-for-play allegations — even whether or not he discussed the investigation with Obama administration vetters — illustrates, I think, the most legitimate objection to the way Team Obama has handled the Blagojevich scandal.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Gay people have been banished to the sidelines of equality for long enough. Warren has shown that he's not willing to work together when he compares same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. Working together should not mean the gay people have to be tolerant of the intolerant, or inclusive of the uninclusive.

Posted by: tobymax1 | December 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

No, Really, How Can Senators Vote for Holder?

Jen Rubin, looking over the Marc Rich scandal, asks whether senators can vote to confirm a potential attorney general who lied to Congress — considering the outrage Alberto Gonzales generated.

But it's not just from back then. Holder just submitted biographical forms that conveniently omitted two months of work he did for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004. Does anyone believe that Holder just happened to forget this? Does anyone think that Holder somehow managed to not see Blagojevich's name in the news lately, and thus didn't think back to the time that Pay-Rod selected him to be "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board"?

Notice this golden quote in the Chicago Sun Times:

"The concern was Holder had a bias to do whatever Blagojevich wanted, which was to give the casino to Rosemont," said Jim Wagner, who was a top Chicago FBI agent before he joined the Gaming Board, from which he retired in December 2005. "We all believed the only reason Holder was coming in was to fashion an investigation that would manipulate the casino into Rosemont."

This is the guy the president-elect wants to be the top law-enforcement officer in the country?

Cowboy up, Senators. When that first hearing starts on January 15, that's your shot to get answers.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't the fact that Obama has continuously said he does not support gay marriage raise the ire of the gay community?

I was watching Oprah a few days after the election. She was talking to Melissa Etheridge about gay marriage being overturned in California. They both had lots of people to blame - Mormons, social conservatives. They never mentioned that Barack Obama has the same position on gay marriage as George W. Bush which is that Obama is against it!

Posted by: deckard1982 | December 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

What a slap in the face!
I agree with 'aravosis', apparently being a homophobe is less of a sin than being a racist or anti-semite.
Obama has lost my vote for 2012. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me - I will not shame myself.

Posted by: SW-DCWaterfront | December 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone name - without researching - who delivered the invocation at the 2004 inauguration? Any other inauguration? Thank you.

But, I do think some posters have a point. Tremendous failure - that is sure to impact almost all facets of this elect-Administration – to not locate an invocation-deliverer whom all could agree with on all points: past, present, personal, and political. Further, it would be a shame if said invocation-deliverer were given the opportunity to address (or even reconcile) such transgressions during said invocation-delivery.

Posted by: Goombay | December 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

It's more than a slap, by inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his historic inauguration, President-Elect Barack Obama has SPIT in the face of tens of thousands of LGBT Americans who worked tirelessly to get him elected. It is an outrage for Obama to give such a prominent stage to a man who helped pass a ballot initiative that wrote discrimination into our state Constitution.

By inviting Rev. Warren—who compared marriage equality for same-sex couples with incest, pedophilia and polygamy—Obama is turning the inauguration into a platform for fear and intolerance instead of a turning point away from Bush-era divisiveness.

Obama campaigned on bringing America together; Warren tears us apart. He doesn’t deserve to share the inaugural dais of the first African-American President.

Obama said that he wants to "agree to disagree" and focus on "the things that we hold in common as Americans," but I don't see any racists or misogynists or anti-semites lined up for the inauguration. Only a gay-basher.

I can only conclude from this selection that he stopped caring about the LGBT community on November 5.

Posted by: Mediaptera | December 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I think people advocating gay rights need to realize these kind of attacks only backfire. Warren is popular, gays are not. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of the matter. Rather than complain, maybe take this opportunity to show that gays can work together with Obama, Warren, and others for the good of our country.

Posted by: freedom41 | December 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I think the question is whether Barack Obama can include anything with Rick Warren that he can't include with someone whose distaste for the gay community isn't quite as marked.

If VirginiaMom speaks true, and I have no reason to believe she doesn't, there's also going to be a religious figure revered by the left involved in the swearing-in, which provides a sense of balance. Throwing a bone to the Religious Right, with an appropriately liberal balance, isn't a terrible idea; it could even be useful for blunting those tired arguments that all Democrats hate religion and family values and would punch Jesus in the stomach if they got the chance. You just have to be sure that there isn't some prominent Religious Right leader who hasn't earned quite as much scorn from the gay community.

Is there? Seriously, I've got no idea.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The kerfuffle isn't necessarily over his support for prop 8. It's about his comments equating same-sex relationships with incest, pedophilia, and bigamy, and his subsequent strong affirmation that he believes same-sex marriage is in that category. Also his bearing of false witness that legal same-sex marriage in CA would impinge on his right to free speech in church.

Posted by: tobymax1 | December 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

For Pete's sake! Get a gay/lesbian pastor to do the benediction.

Posted by: UrbanCrab | December 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Leftist expects Obama to be an extremist, but I want him to be a pragmatist. He needs to pick his battles and Gay rights is not on his priority list. He first needs to unite this country after 8 years of divisive leadership. We need to find common ground not issue to fight upon.

Posted by: rakeshpol | December 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Protesting at the inauguration won't work - that's very ANSWER/Code Pink and completely useless. Picketing Rick Warren's church was and remains a good idea.

Posted by: wp11234 | December 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

james441, i hope y'all aint blowin smoke, and start a big kerfuffle on the mall. the more gays complain, the less they gain; see CA prop 8, etc...
u shouldve voted for McSame, right? Palin?!? b!t@#

Posted by: mloaks | December 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

At bottom, the Blagojevich episode -- whether it involves Obama himself or people close to him such as Emanuel or Axelrod -- demonstrates the disconnect between Obama's deeds and his high-sounding words. He talks tirelessly about reform but was an unobjecting beneficiary of the Machine who did not reform it. Instead, "with very little mud on his suit," he treated it with deference. Likewise on issues from earmarks to education to ethanol, Obama has failed to prove through his actions he is the reformer his rhetoric proclaims.

Like Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama is a product -- eager or acquiescent -- of the Chicago Machine. Clearly, he would prefer that any ties he might have to it recede quickly in the rear-view mirror. The Blagojevich episode gives those ties a prominence that could fracture the determined incuriosity of an Obamatized national media. And as with Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions," so with Barack Obama: Blago and the machine may dog him through much of his presidency.

Ross

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Obama's message of inclusiveness always seems to embrace homophobes, but never racists or anti-Semites.

Posted by: aravosis | December 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm appalled by the Rick Warren selection. I toiled in the trenches for the Obama campaign, went door-to-door to canvas, sent money over and over thru the Obama website - all because I believed Senator Obama WAS the change we so desperately needed. Now the innaugaration will be sullied by a preacher who said his free speech would be taken away by gay marriage. The insult is so great that perhaps the only way to get Obama's attention is to call for civil disobediance on January 20th.

Posted by: james441 | December 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

More specifically, those who favor equality for gays are not in a very conciliatory or inclusive mood right now. The likes of Warren just spent a huge amount of time and effort taking away our rights. Why we should be anything other than furious, and ready to fight with all that we have, is completely beyond me.

Posted by: wp11234 | December 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Pastor Rick Warren may be giving the invocation for this historic Inauguration, but it has been too quickly overlooked that the civil rights movement stallwart, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, will be giving the Inaugural *benediction.* So, you might say that in this Inauguration, the progressives "have the last word." This right-left spiritual bookending of the Inauguration is a veritable pastoral "team of rivals."

Posted by: VirginiaMom | December 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it's inclusive, but this guy is an anti-gay bigot. Why not include someone who is himself inclusive?

It's a complete slap in the face and deserves an equivalent response.

Posted by: wp11234 | December 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Edit: "including people who are not like you".

Posted by: ZZim | December 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I would have to say this is a good example of inclusiveness on Obama's part. Generally when the Left uses the word "inclusive", they mean "exclude the Right". Here Obama is showing them the true path of inclusiveness, which means "including people are not like you".

Posted by: ZZim | December 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company