Ezra,
Your logic seems off.
Obama says the inauguration will be inclusive but doesn't say anything about what the participants do on their own time. Warren's presence and expected expression of good-will toward Obama isn't an endorsement of Obama's policies on GLBT issues but then again Obama's policies aren't entirely great either; should Obama be excluded too?
Warren's presence however at least carries a slight message that Obama's party's inclusiveness on GLBT doesn't disqualify it from his ... blessing. Or whatever.

It validates the value of the candidate and party receiving the most support from the GLBT community.

dear barack

please do not give sarah palin a cabinet post.

Wow, what a surprise! That's exactly the same language the campaign used to justify the Donnie McClurkin flap. Was he not available for the inauguration?

Hum the benediction will be given by pro-gay Rvrd Lowery.
So yeah there WILL be someone else on the stage.

Well said, Ezra. I think you accurately describe why so many of the LGBT community feel so thoroughly disrespected.

Thank you, Ezra. This is right on. And speaking from the gay perspective, I really appreciate your statement. Numbers-wise, we just are only so big, and so the voices of our allies are critical to help magnify our concern.

Obama has been saying - for a year - that he wants to be inclusive and break down some barriers. . . Warren has been invited - along with Lowrey and others who have other viewpoints. . . The big tent concept. . . Obama does not now nor will he ever agree with Warren (nor will Warren agree with Obama) . . . The point is to tone down the rhetoric - on both sides.

Obama is on OUR side. Progressives are on the side of where the country is going on these issues. We will see changes - likely not as fast nor as comprehensive as many of us wish . . . But, we should be adult about this and not criticize Obama for his attempts at open dialogue
with the opposition. . . Please recall the disgust we have for GW Bush over his disregard for contrary ideas.

the benediction will be given by pro-gay Rvrd Lowery

Yeah, I suspect that few are going to remember anything Warren says with Lowery following him. Warren will provide pablum for those who can't digest anything else-- and no right-wing red meat-- but Lowery will provide fire and purpose.

I'm pretty pissed at the Warren selection myself, but I don't think he's up to the historical moment, and it'll show. The worst fallout's happening right now, and by January 20th it'll be a forgettable few minutes.

Wisconsin Reader, where is the "dialogue"? Is Obama going to tell Reverend Warren--with word or deed--that he disagrees with him about gay marriage? No. Did the much-vaunted "dialogue" with Donny McClurkin ever take place? No.

A dialogue is good. But this is not dialogue. This is throwing your arm around a bigot because you want the respect of other bigots. I can't believe anyone would ever defend that.

Can I ask a question of all the people getting into a tizzy over Warren?

What conservative evangelical, who has any credibility or standing in that community, would be acceptable as a replacement?

MIke

Wisconsin Reader, one must have ideas in the first place in order to barter with them, and Warren is nothing but a chubby charlatan with a dubious self help book.

I'm getting rather tired of people saying it all comes back down to electoral politics. It means we're only one step away from resurrecting 'triangulation.' It's not a matter of Obama 'selling out' his supporters or adhering to liberal orthodoxy, it's concern that accomodating the likes of Warren will bleed into Obama's legislative agenda.

Is the bloom off the rose? Sorta sounds like it.

I'm suspecting Obama is going to be the Democrat version of George W. Bush--although much better at speaking.

Obama may well be serious about being inclusive, particularly in the political and ideological realm, where it's not about having everybody in on every issue, but trying to bring more of the opposition on board.

George W. Bush tried this on a number of issues, with poor results, and no credit on the left, or with Democrats, or from the public, for his efforts to be more open and inclusive regarding his ideological opponents. His strategy may have worked well enough in Texas, but it did not work nationally. Mostly, it alienated his base while not attracting anyone who wasn't already in the Republican fold.

Will Obama's (apparent) strategy work? Might. I think it has so far. Appearing on Bill O'Rielly and showing up at the Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren were big wins, in my opinion, for Obama--especially when he knew they were potentially hostile forums, and I'm pretty sure a number of other Democrats (John Edwards, for one) would have avoided them--because of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and all that.

Reaching out to Rick Warren? Not such a bad thing, especially if you actually want to advance an agenda politically, as opposed to making a POINT about how bad and evil people who disagree with you are. And how you should never talk or listen to them or give them a place at the table. Ever.

If Obama keeps it up, he may win over more likewarm McCain voters (like me) than he loses among the "I Voted for War Crimes Tribunals and a New Gitmo for Xtian Fundamentalists" camp.

A cabinet post for Sarah Palin in an Obama administration would be so totally awesome, tho.

"What conservative evangelical, who has any credibility or standing in that community, would be acceptable as a replacement?"

Well, Mike, if you're already convinced that the only religious figure who could give the invocation is a "conservative evangelical," then there's probably no hope for you.

I keep hearing this line about "elevating Warren". That doesn't make sense to me. He's just going to be saying a prayer. it's not like Obama's appointing him to the cabinet or anything. And oh yeah, isn't warren a best selling author a couple times over? Seems to me, warren has his own platform and Obama picking him doesn't really "elevate" him to prominence anymore than he already is.

Oh yeah, and Warren-like it or not- is representative of MILLIONs of americans, a vast number of whom did not vote for obama.

Obama is reaching out to them and saying, even though you didn't vote for me, i hear you, i know you're out there, and you're as welcome in my america as everyone who voted for me.

I don't see the problem with that.

"Well, Mike, if you're already convinced that the only religious figure who could give the invocation is a "conservative evangelical," then there's probably no hope for you."

Uh, where did I say that? I don't care if Obama has a Zoroastrian give the invocation. But is this about Warren being objectionable himself or is this about liberals who simply want ALL evangelical Christians ignored/shunned by Democratic politicians?

MIke

Is the bloom off the rose? Sorta sounds like it.

Obama, like Clinton, is the perfect politician. He told the base what they needed to hear to win the party's nomination. Then he told the undecided what they needed to hear to win the election.o

Now, he tell everyone what they need to hear at this junction. Those who elected him based everything on what he said since he had no record.

Bottom line is.....you've been had.

I much prefer the term "liberal" to the recent turn towards using "progressivism." Part of reason is that liberalism espouses a set of core values of freedom, equality, and respect for all individuals. Of course, that implies that Prop 8 was invidious and discriminatory. But these values also require us to treat people like Warren with equal concern and respect. Your second paragraph seems to say that bigots don't deserve our toleration, but that is deeply mistaken. Liberalism's inclusiveness is what allows politics to be more than a series of power grabs.

But suppose you prefer "progressivism." Whatever beliefs lie at its core must include the proposition that society will progress to greater heights, and that includes full marriage rights to all citizens. I, too, share the belief that we'll see this one day soon. But if we treat evangelicals as if Barack is not their President as well, then I think we'll only see that progress postponed.

Even though, as a gay person, I feel pretty slighted by this, I'd like to see what Warren says. If he focuses on poverty, then maybe the benefit outweighs the harm (just barely). If not, well, then the harm obviously isn't outweighed. The point is that if we can get the evangelicals to care about poverty, both in the third world and at home, by using Warren as a megaphone for these issues, then maybe it's worth the disrespect to me and other LGBTs.

For background, see: http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Beliefnet-Interviews/Rick-Warren/Rick-Warren-Interview-Awakening-Evangelicals-To-Poverty.aspx

mbunge, I live in a conservative rural area and even though my neighbors and I can disagree about a lot (sometimes vehemently) we function just fine because day-to-day stuff has to do with weather and work and how'd-you-get-that-dent-in-your-truck-anyway. Sometimes you have to work with people on issues where you're on one side and they're on the other, and you find ways to work things out. This isn't like that. This isn't working with Warren on AIDS in Africa, it's not working with Warren on poverty here in the US or on global climate change. This is asking Warren to perform the very specific role of asking for G-d's blessing on Barack Obama and the office of the presidency. There are preachers who don't hate gays who can do that.

As sure as I am that there's a time and a place for working with crazy-assed bigots, I'm just as sure that this is not it.

I want to go through Ezra's earlier post on this topic:

"Rather, the benefits probably flow in the other direction. Warren's legitimacy as a mainstream figure grows. His status as the country's premiere religious leader is cemented."

You say this like this is a bad thing. I guess Ezra is pining away for the days when the country's religious leadership was made up of Dobson, Falwell and Robertson, those liberal lions. Supplanting them with Rick Warren is a major step in the right direction.

"And he keeps telling his flock that the ideas Democrats hold make them Marxists and child murderers and advocates of the slippery slope to legalized incest."

Ezra here seems to be trying to say that Warren is convincing his flock to hate gays, when otherwise they would be just some cool pro-gay folks. news flash: social conservatives are never going to support gay marraige in our lifetimes. We can accept that, and work with them on poverty and the environment, or do nothing on anything. Obama is choosing this high profile event to symbolize his willingness to work with them. Ezra and others complain that he could have done it another way that would not have hurt gay people's feelings. But any symbolic gesture large enough to have an impact would have hurt gay people's feelings. Whether its now or sometime later. It sucks, but its the price of making progress on issues that literally could fuck this country in the near future. Gay rights is not one of those issues.

"There's a difference between reaching out to the evangelical community with respect and surrendering to it."

Here Ezra seems to be stealing the lines conservatives used when Obama proposed holding talks with Iran. Symbolic gestures = surrender!

" Obama could have called on an Episcopalian or a Methodist or any number of more complicated and nuanced religious figures."

He is.

" Giving Warren this sort of political-religious opportunity effectively codifies his position as America's most politically important, and accepted, religious leader. That seems unwise, and unnecessary."

Again, what better religious evangelical leader is waiting in the wings to replace Dobson, etc? Obama believes in incremental steps towards progress. And I think elevating Rick Warren is one of those steps.

Gay rights, like many social issues, is one that we will win over time. We have the young on our side. This is a time in history when we need all hands on deck with issues like energy, the environment, and the economy, including cooperative evangelicals. That is the message Obama wants to send.

Ezra...what did you expect? the Hillary progressives tried to warn you over and over again...

FISA, Hillary voted against it...

Do you actually think Hill would have insulted women and the gay community in this way...

progressives...get ready for more disillusionment...too bad the left was blinded by their emotions against Hillary, the genuine progressive...

Thank goodness Hill will be on the world stage where she is admired and appreciated

haha..."hillary progressives"

that's an oxymoron if i ever heard one...

It's Obama's job to extend the invitation to Warren.

It's liberals' role to be publicly angry that he did so.

Watch what happens now. This is how things change.

So, Mike, your position is that no conservative evangelicals share Democratic beliefs, but Democrats should display them prominently anyway? Maybe Jesse Jackson should have done one of Bush's invocations.

"I keep hearing this line about "elevating Warren". That doesn't make sense to me. He's just going to be saying a prayer. it's not like Obama's appointing him to the cabinet or anything. "

When we say Obama is elevating Warren, we mean that he's giving him a platform during the most-watched display of political theater of the year; he's giving him the presidential stamp of approval; and he's reinforcing Warren's de facto status as National Religious Leader (a status that was already propped up by the quasi-debate this summer). All of that qualifies as elevation.

The reason why it's bad to elevate Warren in that way is that it reinforces the idea that truly religious or moral people are anti-gay marriage. Already, here and elsewhere, people are saying, "What did you expect, he has to show that he's religious"--in other words, only a homophobe could play that role for him. It's not just throwing them a bone; it's validating their prejudices, in a very public, clearly symbolic way.

And if you think that symbolism is totally meaningless and that all that matters is the marginal tax rate, you really have no business following politics.

Now that I've had a day to digest this, I think the backlash is pretty overblown. First of all, Rick Warren, unlike many other evangelical leaders, did not make his name by going around bashing gays. He thinks it is a sin, and yes, he made the commercial for Prop 8, and I'm sure you could find a bunch of other stuff too. But the point is that he is not someone who is known primarily as a gay-hater.

It is SOP to reach out to the more moderate elements of the other side in order to marginalize the extremists. What counts as "moderate" depends on the context. For instance many people are advocating that the U.S. reach out to "reconcilable" members of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is a good idea, despite the fact that even "moderate" Taliban are pretty goddamn awful. We've already done similar things in Iraq. Likewise, the U.S. and Israel extended an olive branch (sorta) to Yasser Arafat, not because Arafat was such a great guy, but because he represented the moderate faction of the Palestinian movement.

What I'm saying is that Rick Warren is kind of like Yasser Arafat.

As sure as I am that there's a time and a place for working with crazy-assed bigots, I'm just as sure that this is not it.

Never do you hear anyone use 'bigot' in refering to resistance to the homosexual activists' agenda other than the activists themselves and their kool-aid drinkers.

For the record, Melinda, Obama has exactly the same state views about homo 'marriage' as does Warren. So, why wouldn't he invite him?

Bright minds think alike.

Reaching out via Warren is still a backhanded slap to homosexuals, as it's Warren's bigotry towards them that gives him his evangelical cred. (That and hating teh atheists, but then everybody hates them so who cares?) What Obama is basically saying is this: "Hey, give me a little something on poverty and AIDS, and I'll give you a pass on hating teh gay." And so the deal was done.

And dopes like El Viajero think that progressives have "been had," because Rick Warren will be appearing at the inauguration for five minutes. Meanwhile, Hilda Solis will be Labor Secretary for the next four years.

This isn't overblown. Selecting Warren is appalling. I don't really care that Warren opposes gay marriage, but I do care about how he characterizes homosexuality, likening it to incest, rape, etc.. Ditto for abortion, I don't really care that he's privately pro-life, but comparing women who get abortions to Nazis is beyond the pale. Someone who has spouted such bigotry simply does not deserve to inaugurate a president, let alone this one. If Warren had made racist or anti-semitic statements he wouldn't have been chosen, and rightly so. But anti-gay bigotry is just fine. Elevates our discourse even! To gay people, this selection hasn't occurred in a vacuum, it has occurred in the context of the demoralizing and frankly humiliating success of prop 8, that Obama didn't lift a finger to prevent. I like Obama a lot and he may well be a great president but I'm deeply worried that he doesn't actually give a shit about gay rights.

el viajero

Not that bounds of accuracy have ever informed your comments, but Obama and Warren do not have EXACTLY the same views on gays.

Obama--for civil unions
Warren--against civil unions

Obama--against prop 8
Warren--for prop 8

Beyond that, its obvious that Obama is personally for gay marriage, but has to oppose it for political reasons. I remember him hinting at that once during the primaries. Obama basically said that society will continue to evolve and we will reach that place.

But the truth is that no presidential hopeful could come out in support for gay marraige at this time in our history. Give it twenty years, and the slow grinding of social evolution will have produced that possibility.

I will say something else controversial, which I will preface by saying that in my opinion the fact that gay people cannot marry is a travesty and hugely immoral. BUT....the urgency on this issue does not reach the level of minority civil rights in the 60s. Gays as a whole are not mired in poverty, in fact they are on average probably better off than the average straight person. Though they are often discriminated against, they do not face nearly the urgent and dire circumstances that blacks have faced in this country. Especially when the environment and the economy are in crisis, we must look to compromise with anti-gay factions of society and have faith that social evolution will continue, as it will

So, Obama shouldn't talk to all those dictators and tyrants that so many Progressives were excited that he promised to do? Obama should close his table to those with whom he might disagree despite having the Big Table be one of his key political arguments? It sounds like a lot of Progressives were hoping for a liberal George Bush and are disappointed that you didn't get one.

Maybe you should have listened to what Obama has been saying from the get go. This reminds me of when so many liberals proposed boycotting Fox News as a political strategy. The exact sam thing as the right-wingnuts.

I will say something else controversial, which I will preface by saying that in my opinion the fact that gay people cannot marry is a travesty and hugely immoral. BUT....the urgency on this issue does not reach the level of minority civil rights in the 60s.

I can't imagine that this proposition is actually controversial at all.

As a sort of meta-comment, I'd like to say that I think Ezra's writing on the Warren problem has been very good, particularly his identification of why it's a problem.

Nathan, your projecting. Obama says that he is against gay marriage. This is likely because he is against gay marriage at this time, as so many blacks and christians are. Over time, this will probably change, but then is not now. I definitely agree with the rest of your argument. Gay marriage is not equivalent to the black civil rights movement.

Both Obama and Warren support civil unions, even if they disagree about other things regarding gays and abortion.

Courtney, Obama has openly said, "I'm probably on the wrong side of history on this." No one says that unless they're aware that they are on the wrong side of history. It is obvious to everyone that he is in favor of gay marriage but can't take that position.

Gay marriage is morally equivalent to the civil rights movement, insofar as it's about civil rights. And while the practical need may not be as strong as the black civil rights movement was in the 60s, there's never a good reason to wait on granting people their equal rights.

Finally, there's a big difference between "Don't ever talk to anyone you disagree with" (the position you are attributing to us) and "Don't give a place of honor to someone who openly urges discrimination" (the position we are taking).

yes, PLEASE not Palin.
That could crush quite a bit of hope!

Now that I have had a day to read Jeebus's post- they say the same thing over and over again, and he is here now saying it again. He assumes are idiots not to realize it.

Jeebus- we aren't idiots. You re saying the same thing yous aid yesterday,t he day before, and the day before that. we get it. You think only what you think is important is in fact important. to that, i say fuck off.

Hill-a-REE! Hill-a-REE! (The genuine progressive.) Suckas!

S has a very reasonable point. Hillary made clear she was the gays' candidate; they made clear she was their candidate. Obama is in every way acting pursuant to that, which is to say he owes them nothing. This (Warren) should not be a surprise. More evidence: not a single openly (or closeted that I know of) gay cabinet member. It's all refreshingly overt from where I sit...

We can't be repetitive now? This is a blog commenting section, right?

You should just be happy my comments are (for the most part) grammatical and not written in all caps. I CAN START DOING THAT YOU KNOW

The apologists here try to show Obama sympathetic to the homosexual activist agenda.

With all of the posturing and nuancing.......the bottom line is Obama does *not* support homosexual marriage.

Say it ain't so

It is unlikely that Obama will retract his imvitation to Warren. So I suggest that everyone at the inquguration who has a friend, relative, or loved one who is female or LGBT or a member of any of the other groups that Warren preaches hate against should simply shun him when he speaks -- stand and turn your back to him.

"Reaching out via Warren is still a backhanded slap to homosexuals,"

Let's not lose sight of the larger fact that reaching out to anybody who espouses beliefs based on bigotry and ignorance is a slap in the face to humanity.

Five years of residency in North America, has adequately demonstrated to me, the extreme polarisation and dysfunction of politics and so-called civilised society.
Ideological differences cannot be bridged by the repetitious and monotonous
attacks, personal or otherwise.
Erudite comments, academic debate and an understanding of the differences that exist would be most helpful.
The world is full of the obnoxious. Ignoring them would lessen their appeal.
Gay persons would do well to lessen their vexatious speech and spirit, improve one's self-discipline and demonstrate to society, one's ability to be important contributors to the sustainability of that society.
People are losing interest in the frightful noise originating from all sides.
Introspection, attention to detail and the pursuit of excellence, would be far better arguments in the debate, than providing further fodder and notoriety to bigots.
It all becomes quite tiresome.

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!