You nailed it. There are a million others who coulda been pulled up to do this, a safe interesting unknown would have been more fitting for Obama's debut.

How, exactly, does this result in power? As far as I know, the prayer guy at the inaugural is not a cabinet position. It isn't even an undersecretary. And it doesn't elevate his standing among his own community either because they're mad at him for not rejecting it.

Is this another example of the Underwear Gnome Strategy?

Step 1: Speak at inaugural
Step 2: ????
Step 3: POWER!!

Jimminy Christmas.

Look, I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who's pissed off with the Warren thing. There's obviously good reason to be displeased with it. But this has gone beyond being ridiculous.

According to Ezra's new standard, Obama should never make any attempt to ever engage any conservative, for fear of elevating their "power" and "prestige".

If McCain had somehow won and had invited an openly gay clergyperson to participate in his inauguration...in what way would the Right Wing crapstorm over that have been any different than the Left Wing hissy fit over Warren?

Mike

C'mon, Paul -- Obama's inauguration is going to be seen by as many people as the Super Bowl. You don't think Warren will get a boost from participating in it? You don't think pictures and video of him leading the prayer are going on his Church's website, or brochures, or on ads for whatever speeches he travels around delivering?

And you don't think his participation will hamper Obama's ability to criticize his views down the road?

well, ezra, I am a progressive who is happy with the symbolism of the Warren pick.

I watched Obama closely from the moment he gave the 2004 speech. He is not full of shit. He really believes in the power of dialogue and reconciling adversaries to work on common goals.

We need that right now.

And what better way to, yes, symbolize this reconciliation than at the inauguration. The inauguration is all about the celebration of our American democracy, where adversarial political parties in the largest empire in the history of planet Earth complete a peaceful transfer of power. It is an extremely valuable thing. What better place than the inauguration to include a grand gesture of reconciliation. And don't forget, this is as much Warren giving Obama his blessing, for the millions who look to him and are still Americans, as it is Obama conferring legitimacy on Obama.

If we liberals want to avoid the same fate that the "purity test" conservatives are now facing--decades in the wilderness--we need to embrace the chance to bring new faces and groups into the tent. Obama is an idealist in this sense, but he also sees the practical benefits. I believe in what he is attempting and will support his strategy.

It almost seems like some realpolitik. Obama would certainly rather see Warren as the voice of the religious right than a Dobson or Pat Robertson, so he makes peace with him and gives him a little more prestige. No matter who leads that constituency they will be against gay rights and choice.

On the other hand, the way Warren's base is reacting, Obama may be making him less powerful.

To Mike - the difference between a right wing shitstorm over inviting a gay preacher and the left wing shitstorm over the Warren is that the former is based on intolerance while the latter is a reaction against intolerance.

Looking at the two without ideology, it is not possible to conclude otherwise.

I'm confused by this pick. I do not think Obama should be giving this religious honor to an individual that attempts to influence politics via religion. Let us remember that the separation of church and state was designed to protect the church, not the state.

I think Warren is a terrible choice. I'm disappointed in Barack Obama for making it (or, at least, agreeing to it once someone else made it). I think Warren's a prick, and that the only "purpose" his life is driven by is to get richer and more powerful.

But I don't see how this makes him more powerful. I believe Time magazine had a cover story this year on how Rick Warren is "America's Pastor" or some ridiculous shit. Note that it was published BEFORE the inauguration.

The dude's already very powerful. But there's a finite number of potential converts to his evangelicism. I'd bet most people that end up in his church come from existing mainline churches and other evangelical churches.

Does anyone have a serious explanation of HOW he becomes more powerful after this? More prestigious? He seems to already be about as much of both as he can be.

And you don't think his participation will hamper Obama's ability to criticize his views down the road?

Like how Obama couldn't give a speech criticizing Jeremiah Wright, because he'd already legitimized him and given him power and prestige by going to his church, and thus his primary campaign was utterly derailed and now Clinton is president-elect and who Obama picks to give the inaugural prayer is irrelevant?

Wait, that doesn't sound right...

When I look at the Warren business the thing that sticks in my mind is how intolerant and nasty the progressive blogs have become. The over-the-top rhetoric; the turning Warren-into-Satan schtick; the proponents casually slinging vicious insults against nominal allies; ludicrous analogies; the automatic assumption of bad faith...

We're watching free-floating anger turn inwards and devouring the blogosphere. Ezra - you can either join the mob or you can consider the consequences of adopting a five-minute-hate approach to issues like this. Anger is a delicious feast, and you are the meal.

I'm no fan of Rick Warren, but this outcry is overblown and becoming ridiculous. The man is simply giving a prayer. Now, if he goes and prays for all gays to convert to straight, or something worse, then there will be a legitimate beef. But he's not going to do that. He's going to say some kind words about Obama and that will be that.

I love the left, and I believe the future is bright for people who have been shit on over the years in this country - minorites, gays - because I believe the younger generation is enlightened in a way that their parents never were.

And people whose rights have been trampled on should continue to fight for them.

But don't bite the hand that feeds you. Barack Obama is friend of the left - he is of the left - and he will fight for all of us. But he is about to become the President of the entire country. Not just of the left. And to do that, he needs to open dialog with the right, not just push them aside.

Obama is doing what a wise man does, and here's hoping someone on the left decides to take this Warren thing not as another opportunity to bitch and whine, but rather an opportunity to engage. Because you can either wait until all the bigots die off, or you can try to change some minds. The way people are acting about a simple benediction is not going to change any minds, except to make the struggle more difficult.

I do have to say that many of the arguments against Obama on this issue do closely resemble the arguments that McCain made against Obama's intention to have talks with certain heads of state from countries we don't like.

I'm not saying there's not a distinction to be made. I would be interested in hearing it (for real).

"To Mike - the difference between a right wing shitstorm over inviting a gay preacher and the left wing shitstorm over the Warren is that the former is based on intolerance while the latter is a reaction against intolerance."

In other words, it's okay for you to get pissed off but it's wrong for the other guy to get pissed off.

Yes, this is about intollerance because, if not Warren, what conservative evangelical with any standing or credibility in that community would be acceptable in this situation? Obama is asking a religious leader to give a religious address (which you can be damn sure will not mention any of the things people are pissed about) and the resultant hissy fit is because that religious leader doesn't have the politically correct beliefs.

Mike

As far as marginalizing minorities goes, the very idea of an invocation and benediction led by pastors at the presidential inaugural doesn't sit all that well with the millions of American atheists and agnostics who tend to read the establishment clause more literally than others. But most don't give a shit because unlike Michael Newdow and the hysterical folks making hay over this nonsense, we've learned to pick our battles.

There's something here that the secular press is missing. Warren has become somewhat of a polarizing figure in the fundagelical world. A lot of the hard religious right don't really know what to do with him, because while he talks some of their morality talk, he's also offering a different version of Christianity than is offered by Dobson, et al., although the differences are subtle enough that they're only meaningful to insiders.

This being the case, I think that you need to consider the case of Rick Cizik, and his recent ouster from the National Association of Evangelicals. Cizik isn't a liberal or progressive by any means. But four years ago, Cizik started out sympathizing with progressive concerns about global warming. Then about global poverty. Now, he's finally been kicked out after expressing openness to same-sex unions and strongly implying that he voted for Obama.

The lesson that NAE has learned from this is that once you stray a little bit from their gays and abortion moral orthodoxy, there's no going back. And they are right; once you start to see the world as a little bigger than yourself and your parochial concerns, there's no going back. And this is a good thing.

This is all a long way of saying that Warren is taking these first steps toward a more progressive outlook. (Although, again, I'll acknowledge that this may not be evident to non-insiders.) If he goes further, it could decimate the religious right's political and theological influence. I'm fine if Obama wants to help push him in that direction.

Nathan: Pardon my French, but what fucking reconciliation? Gays in California just lost their biggest political fight ever, thanks directly to Warren and indirectly to Obama's non-involvement. And now Obama wants to bring gays together with those who are discriminating against them--and you say we should be happy about it? Unbelievable.

Also (and this is responsive to MBunge as well): in what sense is Obama "engaging" Warren? When he gives the press conference saying that he supports gay rights and calls upon the religious community to do so as well, that will be engagement. This is simply giving him a leg up.

Looking back at past inaugurations, Billy Graham gave Clinton's invocation in 1992. Couldn't find out who it was in 1996.

so the point is--probably every pastor involved in the history of inaugurations was anti-gay marraige. Obama has Rev. Lowery giving the benediction, probably the first time a pro-gay marriage pastor has been involved in the inauguration.

this is a historic first for gay rights!

Ezra,

You're out to lunch on this.

Obama's point is that our disagreements don't have to make us radioactive to each other. And your response is, "Warren is radioactive!"

You're just not getting it. It's called political magnanimity.

People are saying that the theocrats are mad at Rick Warren for this, and that's true, but it kind of misses the point. It may not help him with the base, but it definitely does help Warren in the eyes of David Broder and David Brooks and Joe Klein and all the other professional centrists out there in the media.

The Dude: Gay rights is not a political disagreement, like the estate tax or something. Discrimination is non-negotiable. Imagine Obama picking Ted Haggard for the invocation; it wouldn't have happened, and if it had you wouldn't be saying, "Catholics should calm down, we need to reconcile." Gay people are aware that their preference not to be discriminated against just doesn't count, and they're pissed off.

Plus, what disagreements? Obama is publicly against gay marriage, so where's the courage in picking Warren? It is clear that Obama ran from gay marriage because he wasn't politically brave enough to support it. Fine, whatever, I'm glad he won. But then to portray his continuing to mainstream anti-gay figures as somehow "courageous" or "a dialogue" is beyond disingenuous. When do the pro-gay marriage people get their dialogue? Any day would be fine.

Tomemos--

I won't ask you to be happy about it. But lets separate a couple of things here:

1. A anti-gay pastor is giving the inaugural invocation. That I am not happy about, nor should any pro-gay rights person.

2. A pastor who has an interest in evironomental and social justice AND a lot of clout in the christian community is interested in working with Obama to help save the world. that we should all be very happy about.

3. We have a president who is serious about bringing the country together around a goal of saving the planet. That we should be happy about.

I am not asking you to be happy about being the sacrificial lamb in this case, but to at least acknowledge that there is a credible reason for doing so.

Also, realize that every other inauguration pastor has probably been anti-gay, but the fact that Warren is being taken to task by large sections of the country means that the ball has been moved forward on gay rights. Its easy to forget that not long ago gay marriage was not even an acceptable political option, and now being anti-gay marriage is a controversial thing. We must change minds one step at a time.

Nathan: as if you can separate Warren's opposition to gay marriage from his status as a public religious figure. Warren only has credibility on issues like the environment because he gives his followers plenty of red meat in the form of anti-gay and anti-choice rhetoric. That's his choice, but picking him to give the invocation only strengthens the idea that his views are mainstream.

Throughout this discussion, on like three different threads now, your reasoning has always been, "Warren is both anti-gay and pro-environment; I care more about the environment; ergo, I am happy about the Warren pick." That's your prerogative, but you should realize how galling it is for you to go around and try to convince people that those should be their priorities, too.

Finally, your points about previous inaugurations don't hold water. We're not talking about his absolute views in comparison with ours; we're talking about his status as a public, political figure. Warren infuriates me because he has a massive platform to preach to the nation, and it just got a little more massive; a relatively unknown religious figure wouldn't have made a difference. This is true of the benediction speaker, who no one has ever heard of.

Maybe if people like tomemos weren't having such public temper tantrums about a pretty insignificant prayer than Warren's audience wouldn't be nearly as big.

Do you really think you're going to convince Obama to dump him? Don't you think Obama thought this through before he made the choice?

So what is the point of your temper tantrum?

The hissy fits and temper tantrums have absolutely no rational purpose.

If you really want to push gay rights forward, you have to engage the people on the other side. This is not to say you are going to change Rick Warren's mind - but if you ostricize him, you will never change any of the people who like him's minds. And those are the people that need to be reached.

Tomemos' negativity is the kind of thing that turns off 60% of this country, and it's the kind of thing that hurts his cause.

Grow up, man! Preaching to the choir ain't gonna get you anything! You're acting like a petulant child! Put on your adult cap for a bit and see that you are just making things worse for the gay rights cause by this all this emotional outrage over a very minor if not totally imagined slight.

Barack Obama has pledge to be on the side of gay rights and he will be. Which makes this outcry ridiculous. Obama isn't just going to be the president of gay america. He's got to lead everyone. Which is exactly what he's doing, and doing it well.

"Throughout this discussion, on like three different threads now, your reasoning has always been, "Warren is both anti-gay and pro-environment; I care more about the environment; ergo, I am happy about the Warren pick." That's your prerogative, but you should realize how galling it is for you to go around and try to convince people that those should be their priorities, too."

Galling? For trying to convince people of priorities? Are you kidding me? What the fuck is the point of the blogosphere then?

I can just imagine, some historian of the future saying, "you know, there were potentials for coalitions between green evangelicals and liberals on a lot of solutions that could have avoided the current situation of NYCity being flooded, whole populations displaced, and most of the world reduced to abject poverty and war due to oil scarcity and the lack of energy alternatives--but getting beyond the issue of gay marriage was just to fucking galling!"

Lets follow Obama's example for once. Throughout the campaign, he has been called a Muslim, the Anti-christ, his wife has been called anti-american, and every other name under the sun.

but what has he done? Has he shunned the other side? No. He has come back to work harder and smarter to solve the underlying problems that breed ignorance and a lack of compassion for the human condition.

that is the only true way to solve these problems.

I have to say, all the queer folk I know personally (including myself) are beyond pissed off at the Warren choice. The people who are saying it's either not worth making a fuss over or even good are, by and large, straight as can be.

So, I hope that gives pause to everyone. Imagine if Obama picked a preacher who has said that Jews are Satanic creatures who can be identified by vestigial horns on their heads. Jews end up in an uproar, and some Christian or secular commentators say, "It's no big deal, it's just a prayer!" and even attack the outraged for trying to ruin a festive occasion.

We all know whose side the vast majority of people would end up on in that situation. The only reason people don't think Warren is a big deal is that hatred and discrimination against homosexuals is variously tolerated or applauded in much of American society.

People seem to be forgetting that it is not that he is engaging in debate with Warren. If he wants to have a forum about religious issues that includes Warren, fine - that can be his way of reaching out, building bridges, kumbaya, etc. Also, this is not just about him being anti-gay. Warren is not just another religious figure - he has actively inserted himself into politics, using his public persona to advance his agenda. This is about providing legitimacy to someone who holds unconscionable views and leverages his influence to advance these views. In this pick, Obama has only served to amplify his presence, and yes, empower him.

People who are reacting with "what's the big deal" are not connecting with the reality of the times. The LGBT community has been acquiescing for too long, and the passage of Prop 8 has lit us up. We are moving full force to fight this bigotry and and our second-class citizenship.

Throughout this discussion, on like three different threads now, your reasoning has always been, "Warren is both anti-gay and pro-environment; I care more about the environment; ergo, I am happy about the Warren pick." That's your prerogative, but you should realize how galling it is for you to go around and try to convince people that those should be their priorities, too.

Is there really any rational case to be made that gay marriage is more important than imminent environmental catastrophe?

So I have no power at all to convince Obama to dump Warren…but I do have the power to anger 60% of the country, grow Warren's audience, and defeat the gay rights movement from within. That's something, I guess.

"This is not to say you are going to change Rick Warren's mind - but if you ostricize him, you will never change any of the people who like him's minds."

What's this about ostracism? Obama already participated in Warren's stupid church "debate." Now it would be a grave insult for Obama to have picked some other religious figure instead of Warren?

Also, do you think the civil rights movement was won by a "dialogue" between racists and anti-racists? It wasn't.

"Don't you think Obama thought this through before he made the choice?"

Yes; sometimes Obama may do things that confuse us or make us sad, but we must never forget that Obama has a plan for us that we cannot understand.

I do think that Obama thought it through. I conclude that he judged that offending gay rights advocates was a price worth paying. That's what makes me angry, and I hope he is proved wrong.

Look: all of this is just talk. No intelligent person thinks that blog conversation is what turns off the electorate, nor that it's read and taken seriously by people in power. What it can do is unite people who are determined not to be marginalized, who do not believe they should have to be publicly discriminated against, and who will be holding Obama to account during his Presidency. Obama's already screwed up twice, by bringing on Donny McClurkin and by staying silent on Prop 8, and now there's this Warren thing. I'm glad you're so sure that he'll be a strong leader on gay rights; I see reason for skepticism and I'm not giving him a free pass.

I agree with the point that tomemos and others are making that gay rights is not a negotiable position. Would Obama invite a pastor who openly argued that black people were inferior to white people? If he did that, all the arguments about symbolism and working with the opposition would go out the window, would they not?

Some positions are simply not acceptable.

Tomemos makes another good point that this is not "engagement" with the enemy. Engagement means you sit down to talk about the disagreement.

I have no problem engaging Rick Warren on the issues, but we can do that without giving him a public platform at the inauguration.

Zephyrus, I'll give you that one. I am a white straight male that has never had to feel the sting of discrimination. Its a blind spot, and I've probably come off as insensitive because of it. I hope I've made it clear that I feel anger against Warren is completely justified, and a feeling I share. Believe me, I have had many conversations with conservative family members explaining why gay marriage is a human right.

And I can understand a feeling of betrayal towards Obama. What I have tried to explain is what I feel are the upsides of his strategy. I also believe that priorities must be set in politics--everything simply cannot be done at once. Obama is president, not an omnipotent god who can wave his hands and magically fix all of the problems of the world. I think that at some point, most of his supporters will feel personally betrayed by some action. I don't see anyway around that if we are to accomplish the enormous task set before us.

Is there really any rational case to be made that gay marriage is more important than imminent environmental catastrophe?

Nathan, Jeebus, come on. This is a false choice. Obama could pick someone with liberal views on both climate change and homosexuality. Or (best of all!) he could pick a relative nobody with few declared political views and just get on with the inauguration. Instead he picked a prominent opponent of gay rights. It's not just gay marriage; Warren doesn't even let gays and lesbians be members of his church. For you to say, "Yes, but Obama has something to gain, so screw the gays!" and expect that people not get angry is arrogant and cynical.

Is there really any rational case to be made that gay marriage is more important than imminent environmental catastrophe?

Posted by: jeebus | December 19, 2008 2:52 PM

Maybe not, but gay marriage is the one we have more control over. It's like how before and during the Iraq war, liberals spent all our time criticizing our own government even though, yes, Baathist Iraq actually was a humanitarian nightmare - our government, unlike Baathist Iraq, is our government. Bringing civil rights to Iraq would have required a massive international effort if it was possible at all, but not going to war in Iraq and not torturing prisoners simply required not doing anything. It's almost the same for gay marriage vs. some other issues.

I think this is symbolic more than meaningful and I was cautiously optimistic when Obama won the presidency and certainly wasn't dancing in the streets over the symbolism of a black man winning the presidency.

Let's just see how this plays out. What do you gain by jumping on Obama this early? I don't think he'll listen to you next time, either.

Tomemos, it's the hyperventilating of people like you - ones who have no interest in engaging the other side - that caused Prop 8 to pass in California. It wasn't Rick Warren and it wasn't Obama. Ok, the Mormons had a lot to do with it, but we all know where they got their best ammo.

It was Newsom the Mayor of San Francisco acting like George Bush in front of his "Mission Accomplished" banner, saying "bring it on" to all the bigots. And you know what, they brought it. And you know what, they were a lot more passionate about it than the gay community. And they put their money where their mouth was.

If the gay community had decided to engage and educate instead of divide and prevaricate in their TV ads, and if they had put their money behind the fight, Prop 8 probably would have failed. But instead, there was a lot of hair on fire emotionality and not enough political engagement.

Maybe the commenter who said that non-gay people just don't get it is right - they don't get the uproar and think it is totally overblown. But you know what? It's the support of non-gay people that is gonna make gay civil rights a reality. If you can't convince you're friends, you're never gonna convince your enemies.

And if you really think Obama can "go to China" on gay rights by pandering to the hyperventilating of the left you're a fool. He needs to stand in the middle and find some common ground.

Some on the left act like Obama should have fully backed the fight vs Prop 8, ignoring the fact that if he had the Republicans would have used it against him and he probably would have lost the election, which would have been a total disaster.

Get a clue, please.

Nathan, Jeebus, come on. This is a false choice.

I basically agree, but someone above explicitly said that their priorities placed gay rights on top of the environment.

gay marriage is the one we have more control over.

Well if we've given up trying to do anything about the environment, I'd say this whole discussion, and just about every other discussion, is soon to be quite moot.

Hey, Nathan, guess who else is a straight white man? Sorry for the self-righteousness, but in the absence of personal experience of discrimination, it is possible to form one's positions from morality rather than political expediency.

Anyway, no one thinks that there aren't upsides for Obama; otherwise, why do it? Gay people and their supporters object to being used, yet again, as a bargaining chip, especially a month and a half after getting repudiated in three states and getting no support from the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I'm glad that you understand people's anger on this, and that we're all going to feel betrayed at some point…but if that's the case, what are you trying to convince us of? That we're just being irrational, or what?

What we are trying to convince you of?

That "crying wolf" over Rick Warren is not going to help the cause when the real wolf shows up at the door.

Supercalifragile, besides Gavin Newsom (who I saw in one ad), you don't have a single example of the No on 8 movement "hyperventilating," and in fact you reverse yourself immediately by saying that the problem was that they "prevaricated" were insufficiently "passionate" and didn't "put their money behind the fight." In fact, the No on 8 campaign did lose a fight they should have one--but by being defensive and catering to people's prejudices ("regardless of how you feel about gay marriage…"), not by hyperventilating, refusing to engage, etc. (I say that as someone who volunteered for No on 8, gave money, etc.)

So first you say that we lost because we were rabid, and then (correctly) that we lost because we were wishy-washy. It's clear that you just dislike my tone and want to blame it for whatever you can think of, and I'm sorry, but I can't help you with that.

*a fight they should have won, not "one," obviously.

Point taken, and yes, I do think both happened, that first Newsom really, really blew it by giving the far right the ammo to fight with, and then the left, instead of engaging with the public and being truthful, did what you said they did, which is say "regardles of how you feel about gay marriage."

So I agree with you on what happened, I guess. And I think both were mistakes, fatal mistakes.

Look, I was and remain very against Prop 8, but was outraged over Newsom's comments, which was just like Bush's "bring it on" - 100% harmful to the cause - and disappointed that the No on 8 movement felt they had to hide something in their ads. You can't trick the public into backing this stuff. It has to be real.

So maybe we agree on the Prop 8 disaster.

But the Rick Warren outrage falls into the same dynamic for me - all this outrage is not the equivilant of Newsom's "bring it on" but in the same ballpark. It's the kind of thing that will be looked at by the people on the fence - the people that need to be convinced that this is the right thing to do - it is the kind of thing that will make them think the left is unreasonable, and you will lose their vote.

The fight for gay rights has to be about hearts and minds - and you don't change minds by going over-the-top just because a man you don't agree with gets to give a prayer.

I think Obama is doing a very important thing having Rick Warren up there. You can't change things by just burying those that don't agree with you. Obama wants to tone down the culture war, not light a fire under it.

I really have no problem with people despising Rick Warren for what he stand for - but I do have a problem with people saying that Obama has sold them out just because he asked this guy to give a prayer. I see Obama not as the guy leading the battle on either side, but rather as the man who will bring both sides together and forge a lasting peace.

Yes, I am naive to think that, and I know the left wants to believe Obama is their champion, but for me, Obama is the guy to bridge the gaps. And I think we need him to do that.

Tomemos, you keep saying "no doubt there are upsides for Obama" as if he made some kind of a Blagojevich-ian deal with Rick Warren.

What I am saying is that there are upsides for ALL OF HUMANITY if green christians and liberals can find some common ground. And that, for a gay person, those upsides are far greater than whatever could possibly be lost by giving Rick Warren 90 seconds to say a prayer, zero seconds of which will mention gay people, I gaurantee you.

In the spirit of inclusion...

OBAMA TEAM TO INCLUDE KLANSMEN AT INAUGURATION
by Ruby O'Butler - NYT 18 Dec 2008

In a surprising move, surrounded by much secrecy, Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] (who is in charge of a $1.24 million budget for the 56th quadrennial presidential inauguration) announced today that President-elect Obama would host the Grand Wizard of the KKK at the inauguration.

When asked about the mixed messages such a gesture might send, the Senior Senator said "it's sends a message of inclusion that even the dimmest bulb will understand" she went on to say "we want to reach out to all the cracks and crevices in America, even if means looking under slimy rocks". While the Senior Senator distanced herself from the outreach search committee due to her aversion to manual labor, she did offer up "that whatever the search committee found, ought to be included".

When asked what Obama and a head Klansman might do together, she offered that while the two originally planned to drink beer and shoot some hoops, the plan was changed when the Wizard complained that being seen on a basketball court might send the "wrong" message to the KKK members. Instead, the two will sit around and practice knots, finishing with a bonfire specifically built by the Grand Wizard for the ceremony.

While this meeting might seem alienating to one of President-elect Obama's biggest support groups, it is thought that the political jujitsu of this move should leave Gays who complained about the President-elect including a Preacher who insults gays and wants to deny equal rights speechless. So far, the Washington consensus seems to support view, "this as a very clever move that should be seen as "real change" by the American public" a well respected Washington insider close to the administration was quoted as saying.

Also appearing by special invitation to the presidential inauguration will be the Hell's Angels from California, along with assorted Somali Warlords and representatives of the Sudanese Government. For the record Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] was asked if she had personally extended a warm welcome to the Brown Shirt Organization of Greater America, but she declined comment specifically on that invitation, saying that "it's a real mixed bag" and "including everybody, regardless of their background, had left a lot on her plate...and she wasn't sure if it would come clean in time for the big event"

Ed. note, special thanks to Washington freelance writer John Aravosis who provided background for this story.

Supercalifragile, as Jeff said above, I'll be happy if Obama wants to engage Warren in an actual debate, or bring him into a diverse discussion about the environment or gay marriage or whatever. This seems like just a reaffirmation that Warren is America's Pastor, America's moderate religious leader; and thus a reaffirmation that homophobic statements and policies are mainstream, moral, acceptable. After Prop 8, people aren't going to put up with that anymore, and that's as it should be.

Nathan: Zero seconds will be spent on global warming, either, so what's your point? We're back to dismissing gay rights as an important priority.

Well, it seems to me that Obama is opening with Warren, and then ending with pastor who is pro-gay rights? Am I wrong about that?

So in that case, isn't Obama also reaffirming that he believes in gay rights?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I get that Warren has the higher profile, but really, can his profile get much bigger? The other guy, on the other hand, is not a famous guy, and just might be after the innauguration.

Shouldn't this be meaningful? Sounds pretty inclusive to me...

Supercalifragile: Fair point. I think my point about Warren's pretensions to be the next Billy Graham--the unofficial moral leader of America--stands, though: this is a sweetheart deal for Warren, who undoubtedly will lead many more inauguration invocations and many more campaigns against gay marriage.

"Correct me if I'm wrong".

You're wrong, Having a Nazi give a shout out for genocide preceding a Rabi calling for mercy from the majority [who are not Jewish] is not a reaffirming statement for Jews by Obama.

Got it?

It's slightly amusing for someone on a progressive blog to say that Reverend Lowery is "not a famous guy."

Anyhow, Warren is obviously not the end of the world. I feel justified in being angry about it, and I do feel betrayed by Obama. But he made his calculations and decided that screwing over the gays is worth having a high profile evangelical give the invocation. Such is life.

I just wish people would stop pretending pretend that this is not a transparently cynical choice that amounts to anything more than ceding political capital on advancing human rights so that he has more capital for other items on his agenda.

OK, well S. Brennan sort of proves my point.

You can say Rick Warren is a bigot, and to these eyes, you'd be right.

But calling him a Nazi and a member of the KKK, or making that analogy, is just "crying wolf" and it does harm to the cause of gay rights.

You can't compare one man's words, hurtful as they may be, with the actions of a man who killed 20 million people. Well, you can, but you are being dishonest, and look the fool. And hurt the people you deign to help.

Are any groups organizing a boycott against the inauguration? Like the boycott against ElCoyote restaurant or the San Francisco theater company?

Putting the symbolism of Warren's one minute speech-to-be to Obama's electoral victory is so off-base that I'm surprised you didn't catch yourself before writing it. People were elated at the *shift in actual power*. There is no real power being granted here. Warren is already a darling of the mainstream media, and for progressive he's certainly far more preferable than James Dobson. We need to win the debate on gay rights on the merits of policy; freaking out over this isn't going to help. And if we fear giving our opponents a pulpit, we've already lost the debate, at least in the public eye.

So Brennan, are you saying having the Grand Wizard give speech before Nelson Mandela wouldn't fair and balanced?

I think that's what Obama is doing here. He's being fair and balanced. He's trying to reach across to Klansmen of all types (I use Klansmen symbolically here) and say it's okay to have these feelings, which may not match mine, but that's what freedom is all about.

Supercal:

So, a Nazi or KKK member who did not expouse actual violence but expoused the message of those two groups are okay? We can put up as equivalence people who preach racial inequality or that Jews are going to hell as a part of an event meant for all Americans?

Implicit, in your comment is your belief gays are not equal. This is the soft kind of homophobia at play here.

You will , of course, like many not admit to that.

It's the Huckabee argument- gays are not violated because they are not being killed or maimed. It's a lie. Gays are killed and maimed legally (See the recent UN discussion) across the planet. In the US, which failed to agree to the resolution due to men like Warren, we are not legally in danger of being killed, but we are threatened by it by the culture that men like Warren help to create.

It's hard to parse his position about gays being pedophilles (the later being criminals) and the postion that we should not be hurt.

it's hard to parse that from his actions of actively fighting to make sure we are second class citizens.

The only way to parse it is to see gays as different. Like I said, you will never admit to what yo are doing.

Bigots rarely ever do. I could replace the word "gay " with "Jew" or "Black, " and it would be the exact same language used against the prior groups.

You of course being the bigot on sexual orientation, but apparently no Judaism and race must rationalize that there is a difference where none exists.

The central frame is whether hate should be allowed ont he stage. It does not matter if that hate comes in a formt hat smiles at us while sticking the knife inthe back.

This game was what racist started to do when they started to lose their arguments too. They claimed- I am not racist. I am this or that. THe blacks are just whiners. And blah, blah blah. It's just nonsense. The words here by you are virtually meaningless in any real world context.

"You can say Rick Warren is a bigot" - Posted by: Supercalifragile

If he was just a bigot, he'd be no different than any of us, but Rick Warren isn't just a bigot, he's a man who has actively campaigned to disenfranchise a group people for personal gain. The fact that he conducted the Prop 8 campaign using Obama's name and helped Obama in the process, makes Rick Warren far more than an ordinary bigot...and people who class political figures [and Rick Warren certainly is a political figure] who seek to curtail the rights of those different from themselves either don't know history, or are disingenuous.

Ezra, the difference between winning the presidency and being asked to give a two minute prayer is so large that it's hard to believe you thought much about this post before submitting it.

Obama's election did mean something. He really was granted an enormous amount of influence and power by being elected president. Rick Warren is not being given any power by being asked to deliver a prayer.

And am I the only one that realizes that Rick Warren already is one of (if not the most) powerful pastors in America? I keep hearing how Warren stands to gain so much from this speech, but nobody adequately explains exactly what he gains. He calls himself "America's Pastor" because in sheer numerical terms, he has can lay a decent claim to that mantle.

Billy Graham didn't become Billy Graham because he gave the invocation at many inaugurations; he gave the invocation at many inaugurations because he WAS Billy Graham.

As for all the talk about gays being thrown under the bus or used as "a bargaining chip," exactly what is the chip that's being offered to Warren? Seriously, I'm flummoxed. It doesn't seem like the gay community is losing anything by having Warren speak at the inauguration. You can't claim to be thrown under the bus when nothing is actually happening to you.

Now, if Obama allowed Warren to talk about homosexuality in exchange for appearing at the inauguration, then that would be using gays as a bargaining chip. But that's not what's happening here.

And before anyone continues to claim that Warren will become more powerful because of this, you've got to cite some evidence of that. There have been plenty of inaugurations. If it's true that appearing at one significantly affects the power of the pastor, then there should be ample evidence to support that theory.

What I'm hearing now are just unsubstantiated claims that I'm apparently supposed to take on blind faith.

Anon:

No, fair and balance does not mean giving equal time to both what the KKK grandwizard has to say and what someone who is anti racists has to say.

This strikes me as the same thing the press does, and it's a false position. Why? Because there is no weight as to which positon is indeed correct.

That the bigot's position is considered the equal of the bigot is screwed up. Think about what youa e saying. That the opressor should be consider as right on his oppression as the party for whom he wants to opress.

That you ask the question to me is amazing. This is how far down th rabbits hole we are as a society. We can no longer discern the correctness of an argument. Fairness means allowing even clearly wrong arguments the same weight and time as clearly right ones.

Why not have people on stage who want to argue that the earth is flat?

Everything the President elect does and what he does as president is now official state action. Whether people here want to pretend that he is responsible for giving approval to Warren is irrelevant to this being the outcome of what he is in fact doing. Notice what many of you are doing here? to assert you arguments you got to pretend a lot of things that in other circumstances you would not assert? Is there anyone willing to assert here as a general rule that the power of the Presidency does not also include symbolism and its impact?

Godplay, again I have to say that people like you are the reason that Prop 8 passed and are the very thing that will hold back gay Americans from having equal rights.

I have no idea why you see the need to call me a bigot, when I support gay rights just as much as you do. But this is the kind of hyperventilating I'm talking about.

Comparing people who disagree with you to murders is not the way to go. Comparing Rick Warren to a Nazi is just crying wolf.

There is simply a difference of opinion on how to get there. Some think jumping up and down and screaming about every slight, no matter how small or imagined (ie Rick Warren saying a prayer) is going to help things. Others of us think it is counter-productive.

People like me think the way to get all gay Americans equal rights is by engaging the fence sitters and being real. Godplay seems to believe you need to denigrate the fence sitters.

You are never going to be able to fight hate with hate. Fight hate with love.

What godplay doesn't get is that the symbolism of Warren and Lowery sharing the same stage is what was intended. That all Americans can come together and work together.

But instead of taking Barack Obama at his word that he will push for gay civil rights, you have a knee jerk reaction about Warren, completely ignore Lowery, and basically have a temper tantrum.

Obama is the adult here, and people like godplay are acting like little children.

Supercalifragile,

One word to this:

"But instead of taking Barack Obama at his word that he will push for gay civil rights" - Posted by: Supercalifragile

It's:

FISA!

Super:

You are the class of bigotry that is soft bigotry that helps bigotry continues.

You see this as "no big deal." "Why don't you gays stop complaining, and the problems you face will go away" type of bigotry.

Bigotry, these days, never admits to what it is doing. So, of course, you don't think anything you are saying here is a value judgment about what you think of gays.

Here's the reality check: you are treated gays differently by how you think we should view gays versus other opressed groups. Rather than it being that opression is wrong. We get from you "your oppression is just an issue" type of arguments. or that , it's no big deal compared to others. The comparison in your bigoted mind set is " crying wolf."

This is not simply a difference of opinion. It's simply you are a bigot, but can not handle it because in modern America bigots are bad. thus to be called one is to cause you cognize dissonance between what you would like to think o fyourself and wha tyou here through your arguments are displaying.

These arguments at their core, when all the crap is wiped away, is that gays are not like other oppressed groups.

A 5 second google search demonstrates how this is a lie. Whether it is death, violence, imprisonment, the terrorism of being threatned in most areas of America to this day (we still cant walk round most of this country holding hands with out being threatened), or any number of other things- including denial of our rights, marginalization is ungodly and mentally defective, inhuman , the list goes on and on.

What do you say to this list? You say that its just a difference of opinion. thus by discounting it, as Ezra correctly points out you can pretend you re doing no harm.

The only thing I add is why you are engaging in this dissonance in the first place. It's because you few gay as different from other struggles. These are all in fact the same struggles- the minority (whatever that minority is) fighting against the oppression of the majority.

Peo like you do not want to fight for rights which is the way in which rights have been obtained. You bullshit you way through these conversatons because it makes you feel better. I simply don't believe you care about the rights. If you did you would not be making the arguments you have made. They are factually, morally and emotionally wrong.

Super

Ditto what Brennan said re FISA

You don't get to argue go on faith when Obama's behavior has known given us reason to believe his words match his actions yet. That he does not get that Warren here is not simply disagreeing with us over marriage, but calling us pedophiles says he does not get this is not simply an issues disagreement. This is a disagreement as to respecting others as human beings. I dont want tdialogue with him. and he's nto as ou say a fence sitter. that is what you want to believe. And as for Obama unfortunately i have to agree with brennan that your views on gay issues is also beliefs. he has done nothing to match his words to actions. When he does, he will get praise. Right now, because he is doing something destructive to gay rights, he gets scorn. As accountability, rather than sychophancy, requires.

We need to win the debate on gay rights on the merits of policy...

Fuck that shit. We need to debate every instance of homophobia where it occurs.

You need both: those who will work within the system, and those, on the outside who will call out the system when it sucks, LOUDLY.

In the 80's it was quiet cooperation along with obnoxious ACTUP and Queer Nation that got things moving. Push on every front.

I intend on attending the inauguration, booing Warren, and enjoying the rest. What's so difficult about that?

Gays who supported Obama in the GE may claim they had no choice; those that supported him in the primaries, though, are fools, and are certinly deserving of our schadenfreude now.

Godplay, the more you hyperventilate and dissemble the more you look like a fool.

I at no point ever said that gay rights was simply a matter of a difference of opinion.

What I said was that there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to how gay rights can be achieved.

But no matter. Go ahead and keep calling me a bigot, but realize that I am actually on the same side as you, I just don't see the point in making ridiculous and outrageous comparisons like saying Rick Warren is a Nazi or in the KKK. Nor do I think calling someone who agrees with you on the principle but not on the strategy a bigot is helpful.

But as I said before, your inability to see the difference is what is most holding back full gay rights from becoming a reality.

You talk the same way the Far Right does, you think this is a war that can only be won with 50% plus 1, and so you're willing to march through Georgia and burn it to the ground. Which might make you happier today because you can get some revenge, but it's going to harm your cause down the road when it really matters.

Look, the people that need to be reached are right in the middle. And they don't buy your argument that the fight for Gay Marriage is the same as the Jews fight against the Nazis, or the Blacks against the KKK. Gays today in most states have almost every right that straights do except for marriage. Now, there should be no discrimination, period.

But to pretend that gays today in say California, where they have the right of civil unions, are analogous to Jews in the Holocaust or Blacks before the Civil Rights act is just not gonna fly with 60% of Americans. Gays and Americas acceptance of gay rights have come to far to pretend we are still at square one. We are closer than ever today. And to pretend otherwise, and call Rick Warren a Nazi is not going to help things, because Rick Warren is looked up to by a lot of people, and not all of them are lost causes - a lot of them could be convinced that discriminating against gays is wrong, but not if you're going to call their Pastor a Nazi, which he clearly isn't.

Anyway, the problem with finding common ground in this country is that too much of the public discussion is dominated by people like godplay who think every is their enemy, even people on their own side who agree with them on the essentials if not the strategy on how to get there.

Those of us who want reconciliation and not war are happy to finally have an adult like Obama leading this country, because he clearly is looking to heal the divide instead of deepen it.

Super again sticks fingers in ears and chants it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Here's a question: do you honestly think that gays' position is more improved with Warren giving the invocation instead of someone less controversial?

If so, why do the people who have the most immediate, direct stake in this have an opinion very different from your own?

This is a totally separate question from whether Obama should do it. It's an understandable position to say that Obama should sell out gays in order to build a broader consensus for the rest of his agenda.

But I don't see how you can deny that this hurts gays.

Those of us who want reconciliation and not war are happy to finally have an adult like Obama leading this country, because he clearly is looking to heal the divide instead of deepen it.


Except of course for the obvious division he's just caused between you and Godplay (with whom you you say you agree on principle) by choosing the bigoted Warren to give the invocation.

You don't try to engage the supporters of Rick Warren by elevating Rick Warren's status. You do it by going around him and engaging them elsewhere. Surely Obama knows this. Therefore, the gay community, AND WOMEN, are right to attribute other motives here.

Oh, and Super? Oppression takes many different forms, and it's criminal for those opposed to it any any of those forms to privilege one type of oppression over another. But you seem to think gays have it all good, and we have all we could ever want since we can put on productions of Hairspray whenever we want.

Here's a sense of perspective.

Just a week or two ago a pair of brothers were brutally beaten, with one dying in the ER, because people thought they were gay (they weren't).

And this was in Brooklyn.

I have a friend whose father disowned him for coming out. Are you saying he should he consider how lucky he is that he's not a black woman in the early 20th century South?

And legally AA folk and other minorities have full legal rights. And even while all too often those rights are ignored and trampled on, at least they have the veneer of equality. Gays don't.

So, yeah. Don't you dare tell me that gays have it good and shouldn't complain.

The future of gay rights in this country isn't affected AT ALL by Warren giving the intro. He's not gonna talk about gay rights!

Not affected, that is, unless the left and their manufactured outrage about a non-incident helps turn the middle against them.

Why are gay people so angry about this? Methinks because they blew it on No on Prop 8 by being bad strategists and letting Newsom be their spokesman, and now they need another boogie man to attack to make them feel better.

Sorry, but that's the way a lot of folks see it, especially people sympathetic to the cause.

I mean really, picketing in front of the Mormons temples AFTER the Prop 8 vote? Brilliant stuff there.

The passion needs to have some smarts to go along with it, because right now it's just stabbing itself in the foot.

Not affected, that is, unless the left and their manufactured outrage about a non-incident helps turn the middle against them.

This is the same attitude that has always had to have been overcome in order for any civil rights to advance. All civil rights have been fought for, not requested politely.

And I can promise you that, even if Prop 8 hadn't passed, we'd still be shrill about Warren. And we'd still be right too.

Your job, if you actually care about gay, women's and civil rights, is to catch up.

You're dancing now, Super. (Isn't that a bit gay?)

First the Warren pick is important because it'll help build a consensus. Now it's totally irrelevant? Pick a storyline and go with it.

And it's gays' fault that Prop 8 passed? Pretty much it's all the fault of the gays that they're discriminated against.

I see.

Super

You lost me when you tried to describe my reasoned approach to why you are a bigot as hyperventiating. You don't prove me wrong. You rationalize. You are coming up with reasons why Warren is not as bigoted as we describe by saying in essense he's not as bad as Nazi. This kind of strawman argument may work with the common village idiots like yourself who need to justify your bigotry. But, I am not that crowd.

Here's the reality. It does not need to be as bad for analogy to work. By your logic, because Jim Crow was not "as bad" as Holocaust one can not say that it was wrong, and should not be given a public stage by the next President either. I know you don't believe that since you alredy say about that you don't.

What you are doing is what the modern soft bigot does. You cease on anything to make yourself feel better about your issues with the the suspect class.

It simply will not work. Like most soft bigotry, its been done before. That's how I am able to identifiy it. I have seen it as an African American.

Sometimes, I find that being a double minority is a big burden. But here, in situations like this, I can read you so clearly that I don't even have to think twice about it. You are bigot, you don't want to be seen as one, so you whine about how things are different because it makes you feel better to believe 'I am not a bigot. Those gays are the one's crying wolf." The word gay coould be replaced by blacks,a nd it would be the same experience I have seen again and again.

You are nothing new. Just a bigot in new clothing in the form of the class you wish to pretend is not suffering because if they did suffer- what would it say about Super?

That's the conversation you wish to avoid.

But, it's not going to happen. I am going to call you on your bigotry and all the rest of the bigots rationalizing their behavior whether it is the hard form like Warren or the soft form of denial like you display here.

Zep

Super's posts are not based on logic or real arguments. So, of course, they are going to move from moment to moment as you zero in on what he or she is doing. They are rationalizations of his or her own issues with the subject matter of gays.

I don't even believe the lies about supporting gays. It is meaningless as it is from racists who say they support blacks, but why do we have to be so uppidy?

Like I said, I am black as well as gay. Nearly everything Super writes here I have seen it word for word with regard to race. Why do you blacks have to be so angry? You will get more if you simply try to get along. Same shit, different group.

The only difference here is Super's choosen target of his bigotry. Not the fact that he has bigoted beliefs.

You aren't going to get him to admit to it. He's vested in thinking of himself as a progressive. I find people like this to be the worse because they can rationalize anything. I am not even trying to get Super to see the truth behind the arguments Super is making. I am simply calling a duck, a duck.

Zeph implying that I said it was gays fault that Prop 8 didn't pass is bullshit, but to be expected at this point. And godplay repeatedly calling me a bigot is just beyond the pale.

These is the facts. I live in CA and not only voted against Prop 8 and lobbied my friends to do the same but gave money to the cause. I don't need anyone to to co-sign me - I'm comfortable enough to know what I am and what I stand for.

But I'm sick and tired of hearing about Rick Warren, and sick and tired of hearing about how black people are homophobic so it's Obama's fault Prop 8 passed.

Fact is, the opposition to Prop 8 was disorganized, they let Newsome become their spokeperson and threw gasoline on the fire, and they were prevaricated in their ads, almost pretending like they weren't gay! Saying this isn't about being gay!

Look, I'm done arguing with the racial fringe. I hope you get every right you deserve, and it's bullshit that you don't have those rights today.

But the way you treat people like me - people who are on your side - says enough to let me know how you treat those who don't agree with you. You think I'm a bigot and you think they're evil. Fine.

But this isn't a question of what is right. We can agree on what's right (I hope), that every American should have equal rights, including the right to marry, regardless of race, sex or orientation.

But it's not a question of what's right. It's a question of democracy, and majority rules, and the majority in California of all places - the one state where this shouldn't be an issue - well that majority voted to ban gay people from getting married. No amount of bitching and whining is going to change that.

What is necessary is political action. Organizing. And most of all, reaching out to the fence sitters. Reaching out to the enemies of gay rights. What is needed is a reconciliation.

What isn't needed is throwing gasoline on the fire. The more Newsom and his like take the stage, the more faux outrage over a pastor giving a prayer that has nothing to do with gay people, the more gay america is going to lose out, because they will lose the middle.

It's not a question of what is right anymore, it's a question of votes. And the gay community needs to figure out how to get those votes. Bitching about Rick Warren ain't gonna cut it. Sorry.

Later haters. Best of luck and thanks for the chat.

Zep

The only factyou need to know is that Super is probably a bigot and more than likely a liar now changing the subject. I would be careful of believing hafl the shit see online about posters claiming to have supported gays before now, but now they are totally against us because we complain about a guy who called us pedophilles.

If that sounds like someone who ever supported us in reality in anyway, then I got a bridge to sell anyone who buy this. My advise is to not waste your breath. The arguments by Super will just keep shifting to rationalize his bigotry.

in the above post you claim to have spent time on & funded the No on 8 campaign, yet the post of yours I paste below you argue the No on 8 campaign was stupid.

Did you donate to a cause you thought was poorly run? You've been telling us to "trust" Obama who clearly lied just weeks ago on FISA and now you post obvious lies what gives?

[[[[[[[Tomemos, it's the hyperventilating of people like you - ones who have no interest in engaging the other side - that caused Prop 8 to pass in California. It wasn't Rick Warren and it wasn't Obama. Ok, the Mormons had a lot to do with it, but we all know where they got their best ammo.

It was Newsom the Mayor of San Francisco acting like George Bush in front of his "Mission Accomplished" banner, saying "bring it on" to all the bigots. And you know what, they brought it. And you know what, they were a lot more passionate about it than the gay community. And they put their money where their mouth was.

If the gay community had decided to engage and educate instead of divide and prevaricate in their TV ads, and if they had put their money behind the fight, Prop 8 probably would have failed. But instead, there was a lot of hair on fire emotionality and not enough political engagement.

Maybe the commenter who said that non-gay people just don't get it is right - they don't get the uproar and think it is totally overblown. But you know what? It's the support of non-gay people that is gonna make gay civil rights a reality. If you can't convince you're friends, you're never gonna convince your enemies.

And if you really think Obama can "go to China" on gay rights by pandering to the hyperventilating of the left you're a fool. He needs to stand in the middle and find some common ground.

Some on the left act like Obama should have fully backed the fight vs Prop 8, ignoring the fact that if he had the Republicans would have used it against him and he probably would have lost the election, which would have been a total disaster.

Get a clue, please.

Posted by: Supercalifragile | December 19, 2008 3:10 PM ]]]]]

__________

"It doesn't seem like the gay community is losing anything by having Warren speak at the inauguration."

And by the same token "nothing happened" to the black (not to mention female) community when Don Imus talked about Rutgers's "nappy-headed hos." Yet they irrationally got angry anyway! It's almost as if some things are offensive on their face, regardless of practical consequences, and deserve to be rewarded with anger and rejection, instead of being given a massive podium, defended by the President-Elect, etc.

Look,

You don't see Black folk getting all upset with stuff when the:

"future of [black] rights in this country isn't affected AT ALL"- Supercalifragile

After all, you didn't see black folks get upset about Rodny King getting the crap beat out of him did you?

What gives with these uppity gays holding Obama to his words?

And once again, no one cares about the atheists. Think about it, we're one of the few religious groups that it's okay to discriminate against, and I assure you every evangelical does. Look, this is why it's no big deal - if you get a different pastor, he's probably going to be anti-atheist. He'll say we're going to hell! And I assure you that almost no one here will make a fuss about that. Especially not Matt or Ezra. As a commenter above said, pick your battles and pick the important battles, not the silly ones.

I think the symbolism of Obama mattered to a lot of his supporters, but I don't think he cares much about it (even if Michelle does), nor was it was an explicit part of his campaign. Everything that Obama has done during the transition has indicated to me that pretty much the only thing he cares about right now is pushing through big pieces of legislation as soon as he gets into office, and he's quite happy, even eager, to make conciliatory gestures to potential adversaries in order to win their support or at least dampen their opposition. He did this as a legislator in Illinois, we saw this with Lieberman, and I think the Warren business is motivated by the same strategy. It does seem to me that he's taking it too far with Warren, but I can't be too upset with him for deciding that the most important thing is getting his legislative agenda passed.

The last poster is a liar or ignorant. Actually, Obama's transition met with several gay groups. Has put out several statements claiming they will be pushing for ENDA, etc. That's why this choice comes as such as shock. Our standards, in the gay community, for Ameircan leadership on gay issues is extremely low. It's becauase he raised expectations that we are disappointed. Do you really think we would be this annoyed o therwise? You really have no idea what oppression this society places on us gays. We are not the TV version of being gay. Thus, when I say low expectations - I mean low. Now, I am back to I will believe Obama when he does it. Otherwise, he's another politician.

And they'll know we are Christians by our love by our love.

Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love.