I probably run the risk of a reader revolt with one more Rick Warren-related post

Yep. I'll check back in after the inauguration.

Please. It's just a stupid invocation. BFD.

I agree with Todd Gitlin. My initial reaction was feeling as if I had been punched in the gut. While I appreciate Obama's apparent sincerity about bridging the gaps of the culture wars, this struck me as the wrong forum to do it, for reasons that have Steve and others have argued. It gives Warren more stature than he deserves and a platform to attack Obama's social policies. So I reserve my right to be disappointed, but the proof will be in what Obama actually does in office. It's important to remain vigilant. Obama won on a platform that included the most progressive policies on LGBT rights in American history, and people who support that movement must keep up the pressure to ensure that Obama keeps his promises.

Haven't read all the other comment threads, but for a hypothetical, what if the Pope were to give the invocation? Similar views on homosexuality, abortion and the like, high profile, but not evangelical. Acceptable?

These two views are directly in conflict. On the one hand, "When Warren uses his expanded stature to undermine Obama's agenda in the future, it's the kind of mistake that may have political consequences." On the other hand, regarding Obama's economic team, "when it comes to substance and policy matters, these announcements are going to matter long after Warren heads back to Saddleback." So which is it? Is the "Warren effect" going to fade as soon as the Inauguration is over, or is it going to damage the progressive agenda in the future?

Censure, for an invite? Whatever. Can we keep our eye on the ball instead of all meaningless blather, please.

You lost me at "Warren." Goodbye.

Move on in 2012. Obama can make it up with Saddleback's votes.

chocolate thunder wrote: "It's just a stupid invocation. BFD."

to you yes... to others it's an incredible validation of warren and his intolerance... a slap in the face to the lgbt community and their supporters...

and let us not forget warren giving his faith-based ok to assassinating the president of iran...

obama made a very bad decision... thankfully it's not an appointment....

obama does deserve to hear back on this...

and god help warren if he ends that prayer with... "in jesus' name"...

I think the outcry thus far has been necessary and proportional. I also agree that it needs to be kept in perspective. I do not think that the Warren invite by itself will impact Obama administration policy. It does make me feel the need to be keep an eye on how his outreach to anti-gay forces may have influence in the future, though that is not something I'm particularly worried about.

People who are moving from criticizing the invitation to stating or implying that the Obama administration is anti-gay are completely losing perspective and need to re-examine their judgement.

I'm too excited today about the science appointments to be caught in a negative view of Obama because of this inaugural invitation.

OK, I'll move on for the good of the country.

But just for the record, the Rick Warren thing stinks.

I probably run the risk of a reader revolt with one more Rick Warren-related post, but let's say this is the last one. Probably.

AHAHAHAHA!

May I suggest starting up http://www.Warrenmonthly.com

Really, its strike two. During the primaries he appeared with that weird Donnie McClarren or whatever the fuck his name is.

This is political pandering at its most naked. The problem is, where does it stop? If Obama doesn't see any negative impact from a move like this, or actually percieves some kind of benefit then what's next? Gays are probably the most vulnerable group in the nation politically. I don't think its a good thing that Obama chose to pander to the right at the expense of supporters who really need HIS support.

It might not be a major event, but Obama needs to catch some heat over this in a measurable way.

"Obama, to my mind, is poised to become the most progressive president in history on social/cultural issues, including gay equality."

By starting his term with a prayer from a bigot (and a specifically gay-bashing bigot at that)? that itself is egregious - are there no Christianists out there he could have used that didn't have such a prolific record of gay-bashing? And this is after the whole Prop H8 business. Having this scum do the invocation is almost as big a snub to those citizens who lost their rights as you can get (it can be topped if Obama spends his Inaugeral demanding concentration camps for gays, but that is exceedingly unlikely - though not impossible, considering Prayerboy's inclusion and the high-handed cavelier attitude of Obama toward gays). It isn't even that he isn't supporting gays, it's that he seems to be going out of his way to specifically attack them.

And one event does make you a bigot when your response is not to apologize for the faux pas, but to demand the aggrevied shut up and apologize to you. When you decide sucking up to anti-American bigots is more important than supporting citizens who just were second-classed, you are a bigot. You lay with dogs, you wake with fleas - laying back down again while flipping off those with flea-powder makes you a dog.

Considering his very first move wrt gays was to elevate a guy who wants to end them (and then when called on it, to glory in your choice, while telling said gays to stfu). "Obama, to my mind, is poised to become the most progressive president in history on social/cultural issues, including gay equality" can only be based on a subjective, sliding scale: "I was supportive of thier removal at the beginning of my term, but now I just want them to have to wear pink triangles in public, so look how far I've come". If David Duke was poised to give the prayer, would blacks be expected to grin and bear it for the good of securing the KKK-vote for the Democrats? If not, then why should gays?

Obama is a centrist. He will only do progressive policy if forced to. Voicing mild discomfort with decisions like this remind Obama and his team that his base will not eat every shit sandwich he fixes for us.

Because it's just a stupid invocation, that's why.

Honestly, people. Prop 8, we should get exercised about. This? Of little consequence.

Someone, I think on Maddow, made a pretty good point--if Warren had made anti-semitic or racist remarks like he has with regard to gays, he wouldn't even be considered. He'd be a pariah, and no one would be saying "it's just an invocation" if he were actually chosen.
I have to say, I was originally in the "BFD" camp, but I can't excuse one form of bigotry and condemn another.

Move the F On please.....
By March Ya'll be barkin about something else. Remember, "It's the Economy, Stupid!!!". Rick Warren is the new Billy Graham of this county and we all need to get used to it and work with is instead if rending cloth and nashing teeth over it. For cryin out loud, let's get this guy in office....

Would "teh other side" have gracefully decided to "Move On" if Obama had picked, say, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to give the invocation?

Think of all of the things that Obama was supposed to do because of certain disagreeable things that Wright said - and for that it was held against Obama because he didn't immediately repudiate him - until Obama was forced to repudiate him.

So that is the difference between the Right and the Left - the Right gets to make a stink about an association until they get their way - but we're supposed to just "Move On"...

Good grief. Why didn't he just invite mormon president Thomas Monson to give the invocation as outreach to the McCain voters in Utah?

I'll say it again: anyone who supports a "separate but equal" standard is not a "fierce advocate of equality." He's a fierce advocate of pandering to the wrong base and tacitly endorsing continued hate and marginalization. This decision - and the follow-up decision to tell LGBT people to cry him a river, they got in the parade, after all - was exactly what I expected.

Giving Warren a spot on the inaugural platform endorses his hateful views of LGBTs, of women, of Jews, and the pro-choice crowd. That kind of action should be beneath the man who ran on a platform of change and inclusivness. Looks like the platform was actually made of spit, kleenex, and lies instead of planks.

Someone, I think on Maddow, made a pretty good point--if Warren had made anti-semitic or racist remarks like he has with regard to gays, he wouldn't even be considered. -Allan Snyder

I'm not so sure. We are talking about someone who within the last two weeks justified the assassination of a foreign leader with a Bible verse. And hasn't he essentially or outright said that all Jews were going to hell?

Nah, Warren is bulletproof. He's the anointed leader of the neo-evangelicals. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Maybe whoever made Obama's inaugural suit also has sweatshop labor practices. In that case, I'm preemptively outraged that he would being his term with such a blatant slap in the face to fair labor practices, and this is a moment that will reverberate throughout history, and I'm already disappointed to the point of despair, and I hope Obama will do the right thing for the good of the nation and resign.

Just saw "Milk", which leads me to ask, "What would Harvey do?" My impression--invite Warren, accept his support on the issues you agree on (and there are some) and fight like hell on those you don't, but always talk.

Considering his very first move wrt gays was to elevate a guy who wants to end them (and then when called on it, to glory in your choice, while telling said gays to stfu).

He also elevated Rev. Joseph Lowery, one of the original civil rights leaders who is not only vocally pro-gay, but spanked George W. Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral while Bush had to sit and watch.

The longer this goes on, the more pleased I am, actually, because it means that Rev. Lowery is slipping in without the furor from the right that would usually be spouting by now. Even the right is so fascinated with the Warren story that they're ignoring Lowery. At this point, even if they do try to raise a stink, everyone will be tired of the issue long before their first press release goes out.

I like your attitude Steve. I think we really need to keep this in huge perspective.

No doubt Obama will continue to disappoint, and we have every right to express our concerns--but we owe it to ourselves to look at the whole picture.

His policy implementation will likely be the most far reaching and progressive we've ever had. His team is amazing. The level of diversity in his cabinet is great, but more importantly these are really, really competent choices. Obama really wants to get things done, that's for sure. This man is serious. And look at what is before him.

As Harry Shearer said on Olbermann yesterday, it's hard to believe he doesn't weep deeply when the reality of the enormity of tasks before him hits him hard in the wee hours of the night.

And it was Gavin Newsom on Maddow last night who actually said he met Warren and thinks he's a good guy and more importantly he is willing to give benefit of doubt. Gee, if he can--we all can. And we'll likely need to more than just once.

Still discussion like this is always productive in my view, so I'm glad Steve you broached it fully, from all angles.

I remain appalled at the choice of Warren. Am I biased? Maybe: My incomparably beautiful daughter is gay. But it infuriates me as a liberal and an American gays are so easily dismissed, discounted, and denied simply because they are gay. THERE ARE A LOT OF PREACHERS OUT THERE. (No pun intended on OUT.) It is not necessary to get one who equates the marriage of two consenting loving adults of the same sex to crimes of pedophilia, pologamy (which often involves adults and minors) or incest. What nonsense! How offensive! As Rachel said last night, this is not a meeting in Obama's home or Senate Office; this is on the internationally televised front lawn of the People's House. Would Obama feel as welcoming to someone who took the same line (equally illogical) on interracial marriage? This choice not only hurts all gay, trans-, and bisexual people but their parents, brothers, sisters, and everyone who loves them. Is there anybody who can defend it as necessary? I don't think so.

This is far less about sticking Rick Warren down the throats of the country than about sticking Obama down the throats of Rick Warren's flock.

Look, it's going to take a huge amount of luck as well as skill. But if the Warren flap is not just the latest page in Obama's playbook of winning by co-opting enemies, then could somebody more accomplished, tactically savvy and moral than BHO explain to me why we should doubt him now? It would help if you'd identify yourself as one of these people in your comments.

I'm in the 'BFD/Move F*** On' category on this, but all the back and forth really shows how wounded, abused and angry we sentient beings are from eight years of totalitarian rule, rampant environmental destruction and pure snottyminded smugness from those swine who *knew* they were breaking the law but knew we were powerless to prevent it short of full-out armed revolt.

In our hearts, what we really want is revenge. We want to stomp their heads in and feed their brains to our cats. We want to rip their hearts out and watch them bleed while begging for our forgiveness for hurting us so badly.

That's what we really want, but we also know it will never happen. The scum will go free, never to be punished for their crimes and in all probability live long and wealthy lives, still feasting on the bones of the society they raped so happily for so long. And we absolutely hate that, even as we can do nothing about it.

So any event that can be even marginally perceived as rewarding the bad behavior of anyone even remotely connected to the people who hurt us drives us insane with rage. It's understandable. It might even be healthy in some sense of releasing pent-up frustration.

Let's just not forget that the person about to become in charge is not the person who is just leaving the office. He's going to make decisions that not everyone will like and that he may later regret. That's human nature.

But I will never forget that moment when I drew my first full breath in eight long years, when I felt the first stirrings of wild, unbelievable hope that the darkness was finally lifting and humanity might still have a chance to survive. And I will thank the man who gave it to us for the rest of my days, even if he does make a few missteps along the way.

He deserves that much. We all do.

This is not the first time Obama has invited a bigot to share the stage with him. During the campaign he toured with Donnie McClurkin, who went from being a gay man, to being a heterosexual gay bashing gospel singer and preacher.

Obama also shared a stage with Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. Caldwell runs a ministry that states: "We are pleased to announce the creation of 'The Way, The Truth and The Life,' a program created to provide Christ Centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins."

And now Rick Warren.

I think lesbians and gays have every right to question this, and should!

BAC

OMG, Obama's being nice to someone we disagree with, he must be a closet homophobe!! You guys sound just like the Bill Ayers conspiracy theorists. The fact remains, as I heard expressed on this blog frequently over the past year, that Barack Obama should be judged on the basis of his own stated positions, not the views of people with whom he has some casual connection. The willingness of this mob to turn on the most prominent and articulate defender of progressive values we've had in a *long* time on the basis of this Rick Warren nonsense just astounds me.

By hand-wringing indulgence of the other side, Obama looks weak to them, like a pussy. They don't even respect our side when we do things like this, so inviting Warren doesn't even accomplish making some reach-out to conservatives.

It's the lying, dammit.

Steve, what you and others miss on this issue is that Obama lied about who issued the invitation; Obama originally claimed the congressional committee overseeing inaugural events issued the invite. And, it's a pattern of Clintonesque word-parsing that continues to grow.

Many mainstream liberals may think that wingers made way too much about Obama's smoking statements to Brokaw, but those, too, were Clintonesque.

And, the Mainstream Liberal Blogs, or MSLBs, as I identify them, will continue to overlook this.

We can only hope for a viable Green, or Socialist, party.

I wonder if I can breach the subject of whether people who oppose gay marriage are in fact "bigots," since that seems to be the trope of the day.

Although I support gay marriage myself, I recognize that this is a tough leap for a lot of people to make. Ten years ago, the issue was barely on the rador screen; I suspect the opposition would have been around 80-20. Now it's more like 55-45, still a majority against, but shrinking fast.

I'm not sure the name calling is going to get us where we want to go any faster. Rights are won over long periods of time and in fits and starts.

One dumb invitation does not a bigot make.

No it does not. But this has come after a long line of Clintonite / Bush cabinet picks accompanied by a dearth of liberal picks.

Obama says he needs to reach out. Well, that means he needs to reach out to liberals, too.

Otherwise, Obama should not be surprised when he encounters the same opposition from liberals that he would face from any other group whose interests he ignores.

We need to be able to engage our adversaries -- not ignore or insult them. We are liberals -- remember. The right wing are the so called bigots who will not even listen to a different opinion..

How are we to move forward on any issue without taking baby steps first? And why doesnt Obama get to pick the speakers and programm that he thinks symbolizes the approach that he wants to take with his administration at his inauguration? It IS revealing that he chose Warren. Do you actually think that he did that to stick his thumb in the eye of homosexuals and others who disagree with the fundamentalist agenda?

Where do we start on all of the difficult issues, but particularly those with social impact. Do you think that turning your back on the opposition or screaming and exclusion brings folks along for change? Really?

Was the only change you had in mind was for those other people to change? That you wouldnt be asked to listen, to consider, to sit down next to someone whose views you abhor but who are also a citizen of this country? Did you plan to just send those other folks somewhere so that you could just do what you want?

What happened in Ca with Prop 8? Were people listening to each other's needs/experience/reality? Well -- no. But you guys plan to change those minds and hearts by throwing sand, screaming, not listening and calling names. Hmmm.

I don't think that is going to work, somehow, all due respect to the cause.

Where do we start on all of the difficult issues, but particularly those with social impact.

Elie, my life and human rights (yes, marriage IS a human right, so said SCOTUS in Loving v. Virgina) and type of citizenship in my own country is not an "issue with social impact." It is not, to use Obama's own phrase, "social issues on which we disagree." These are human lives, with real-world consequences. I am not a "social issue." I am a human being, a citizen of the United States, and I am sick to fucking death of being thrown under the bus once my vote has been counted. This is shaping up to be 1993 all over again.

You ask where we should start. Well, I suggest we start by firmly stating that hateful bigotry equating certain groups of law-abiding citizens with criminal sexual predators is UNACCEPTABLE to the incoming Administration, religion does NOT equal a free pass on that bigotry, those who purport such hateful bigotry against American citizens are NOT welcome in the White House, and their message will NOT be even tacitly endorsed by giving them a position of prominence at a public event such as the Presidential Inauguration. THAT would be a start.

Oh, and telling the truth about who approved the invitation for such a hateful bigot would also be appreciated instead of dodging the question with platitudes and outright lies.

Last week a different issue affecting about the same number of people was discussed- What would Obama do about the drug laws?

And the answer was, Obama would do nothing.

And somehow that didn't arouse any comment, in spite of the rather obvious public expense of marijuana prohibition, for which no rational person can find any justification at all.

So you see, there's really no reason to get worked up about all of this.

I'm changing my registration (that's moving on we can count on!). First of all, having an invocation/benediction paid for with tax payer $ violates the First Amendment in my book; second, as a Christian, I'm offended that he'd name anyone who preaches such a vicious gospel of hatred in the name of Christ to represent my sectarian identity. Third, as a queer, let me just say that the Democrats and Obama can find some other bitch to slap. 30 years of donating, phone banking and supporting Democrats to be slapped in the face as his inaugural gesture - not the change this dyke was looking for.

I'm sure Rev. Warren's parishioners will support the Democrats and Obama in 2012 as faithfully as I did in 2008.

Y'all can go find some other fool.

Keori --

Of course you are not a social issue. I am making no attempt to minimize your or anyone's concern for an issue that has very personal impacts on you and others...

How do you intend to change minds? That is what I ask. Maybe not every mind that disagrees with you, but enough to change the law, put at its most practical.

Yes, this is a highly emotional and personal issue. Should we avoid it? How do we engage it? Do you actually think we start with telling the opposition that they are unacceptable, and get them to listen to us?

C'mon now. Be upset, have the anger -- but don't let it blind you. If you are going to get what you want (presumably change in the law and to some extent, change in attitudes),how do you go about that?

I guess we could have an all out riot in front of the capital on inauguration day, where our side could attack their side. That would work, right? Why not? We certainly would be sending them the message that they are unacceptable in the most certain way.

I know that is not what you are suggesting. But we don't address change from anger and screaming and demanding alone. It. just. wont. work. And if changing minds and hearts are what you want -- and not just being right, you have to think about what will actually influence and push people along in awareness...How does that lion lay down with the lamb? How is that lamb made safe? Only if the attitude of the lion is changed profoundly.

Have a great holiday season and my respect as well...

I find it distressing that the progressive intelligentsia seem so unprepared for governing and vagaries of power.

It's like they've been back-benchers for so long, they can conceive of no other existence.

Another penny's worth:

While irresponsible thugs and intolerant bigots like Warren are offensive to a civilized culture and should be given no encouragement, they appear to find sustenance in the rich loam of American diversity, a fact which Obama somehow or other has to accommodate. Blanket rejection of their ethos and ilk would be counter-productive and serve mainly to augment their significance. I'm sure, taking the broader picture into consideration, Obama has calculated that their influence can more effectively be contained and neutralized by giving them the only appropriate spot in his inauguration, namely that of contributing a spiritual invocation. The point about this, if one is to give Obama the (well-earned?) benefit of the doubt, is that by confining Warren's role to the pastoral he is effectively denying him a voice in the political.

Wishful thinking? -- Most sincerely hope not.

How do you intend to change minds? That is what I ask. Maybe not every mind that disagrees with you, but enough to change the law, put at its most practical.

Yes, this is a highly emotional and personal issue. Should we avoid it? How do we engage it? Do you actually think we start with telling the opposition that they are unacceptable, and get them to listen to us?

Harvey Milk made the point back in the 70s that "People vote for us two to one when they know one of us." He was right. I have come out to my family, my friends, the people I served in the military with, and to an extent I am out professionally. By showing people that I am a real human being, not a scary headless monster, and not a vague, impersonal "social issue," I make people THINK about what they're really supporting.

The opposition will never change their minds about what I am. People such as Rick Warren and his sheep will hold on to their hatred until the day they die. They will not change, I have no influence there, so I will not waste my breath trying to engage them. My anger is not simply with Rick Warren, and his vicious christofascism. My anger is with the PEOTUS, who ran on a platform of inclusion, change, and moving on from the same old shit we've had shoved down our collective maw since before the Reagan era. PE Obama's entire campaign was premised on tearing down old barriers, on making the world a better place for everyone (except LGBT people, who apparently are supposed to be okay with "separate but equal.") He has not even been sworn in to office, and already he's turning around and spitting on those who supported him. It paints him with the brush of the same old politician who will include everyone until the votes have been counted, then roll right over the easy targets, and have the gall to lie about it and brush it off like it's a fly buzzing around his ear.

Yes, I do believe it is his job to say that "christian" hate is unacceptable, and here's why:

When progressives say that a viewpoint is unacceptable, they don't incite violence against or try to vote away rights of people who hold that viewpoint. Their rejection of hate harms absolutely no one. No one's right to free speech, to vote, to marry, to have or not have children, to attend worship in peace, or to walk the streets without fear of abuse is threatened. You can't say the same of those who endorse "christian" hate. Their hatred of the "other" manifests itself in real world consequences of hate-sponsored discriminatory ballot initiatives, court battles, media savaging, clinic bombings, lynchings, assaults, and the continual spread of poisonous lies to anyone who will listen.

Or, public rejection of "christian" hate harms no one but a few overblown egos, while "christian" hate harms everyone it touches.

Would Obama have a neo-Nazi give the invocation? Or perhaps a known KKK Grand Wizard? Of course not! So why is it all right for him to have a public homobigot up there with him? Because it's still acceptable to hate queers. THAT is the travesty here.

This may be hair-splitting, but I would make a distinction between Warren, who holds anti-gay and bigoted views among his overall portfolio of views, and the neo-Nazi or KKK examples, where the bigotry is central to the whole enterprise. That is, Rick Warren didn't come to prominence _by_ preaching hatred -- if anything, he came to prominence by doing the reverse. So he still holds noxious views, and frankly I regret his whole existence, but his bigotry isn't what made him famous.

And you think hate isn't central to Warren's enterprise? How else do you think he's endeared himself to Southern Baptists? Holding hands and singing kumbayah with members of the Janus society? Give me a break. People don't make money off of dehumanizing others because of their overwhelming love and respect for their targets.

Here. Paul Jenkins and Jane Smiley say it far better than I can manage right now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/mr-obama-disagrees_b_152382.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/joe-biden-asked-me-for-mo_b_152237.html

Guys, we need to work with PEBO. He's calling for unity from all of America, not just those of us who are progressives. If he's to accomplish that unity - where every American has a place at the table - he's going to need our help. Let's not be like the party we've just sent out to pasture. Hate has to stop somewhere... let it be with us.

Sorry, Purplehawk, can't make it to the table. I'm stuck under the bus next to the left wheelwell. Maybe some other time.

Keori:
"In sum, you don't win inclusion in society by campaigning for exclusion of others. Period."

-Al Giordano --

If you just want to keep the issue, the resentment, the victimhood and not move the issue along, well, there isn't much point to engage or discuss. You just stay on your side (under the wheel well as you feel it) and the others will just stay on theirs.

Now THAT feels good...

Elie, you seem to think that engaging the other side means lying down while they run over me. I do not think so.

Oh dear. Guess we'll just have to civilly disagree. Aren't you glad I won't call you a rapist, a pedophile, or try to take away your rights because we disagree?

Your privilege is showing.

Two.

Minute.

Invocation.

And five minutes later, no one in America will remember a word he said.

Except a bunch of whiny liberals who can't see beyond the ends of their noses.

Do you remember who gave the invocation at Bush's second inaugural, or what he or she said?

Of course not.

Oh dear. Guess we'll just have to civilly disagree. Aren't you glad I won't call you a rapist, a pedophile, or try to take away your rights because we disagree?

When you decide to stop your incessant whining and stop playing the victim, you'll attract more people to your cause.

Your privilege is showing.

You'll never get anywhere with me with that kind of attitude, and I'm on your side.

I've had enough. I'm going through my Google Reader list and unsubscribing from every progressive blog that had a Warren post today. Including this one.

In the fall we had weeks and weeks of bloggers shrieking that Obama was blowing the election. We had a two-day respite when he won. Then it was weeks and weeks of demanding Lieberman's head on a platter. Now this.

The endless, outraged bleating over any trace of ideological impurity from the Obama camp is accomplishing absolutely nothing. Zero. The economy is crashing, the environment is being wrecked, Iraq is a mess, but liberal bloggers can't shut up about a freaking two-minute invocation.

Greg Sargent has an interesting post at TPM about how Obama's way of triangulation really is different than the way Bill Clinton did it.

After the past couple of days and a few deep breaths, I think we're starting to get to the real root of why the Warren pick set off such a firestorm. It's not that Obama is a complete and total failure at veering to the left and that all of his cabinet decisions so far were right-wing, as some people (present company excepted) were trying to claim at the beginning of all of this.

The base problem is that homophobia is still socially acceptable in a way that racism and (some kinds of) sexism no longer are. There are still a lot of people in this country who were offended by Imus' "nappy-headed hoes" outburst but who really do think that gay people are barely a step above pedophiles.

It sucks to have that fact shoved in our faces once again (and technically it's not even my face since I'm an ally, it's the faces of my friends and relatives). I think that everyone who's hurt and upset to see this pop up again, especially right after the Prop 8 fiasco, is absolutely entitled to their feelings. Unfortunately, this specific battle will probably be lost.

Once feelings have started to cool off a little, I think the question we need to start asking people like Warren is, "Why are you so comfortable saying cruel things to people?" Not engaging him on good/bad, moral/immoral, but a simple question of why he thinks he should be allowed to call people names whenever he wants.

And if a few members of Saddleback Church are willing to come out of the closet (because you know they're there), so much the better. Make Warren publicly throw them out of his church (as the church's website says will happen) and then explain why he decided that members in good standing should be ostracized as though they were murderers.

Keori:

Sorry -- you know nothing about me -- much less my "privelege".

Shows your own instinct to prejudge -- and from how much information? My attempt to communicate with you and find "common ground" betrays MY privelege...

I am a workaday, middle aged, middle class black woman account manager who has to work every day and has had my share of disappointments in this life.

Grow up -- take it like the rest of us and stop whining. Be ready to work for it -- to win respect and your place -- which is already there -- you just have to be willing to rub elbows with the rest of us.

Very little in this life is given without a cost. I've put my skin in it and am proud of what I am doing where I live politically. I can hold my head up but have had to eat some crow too. I am always learning but I have learned the most from my opponents.

Maybe you could too.

Think Obama will probably be a great president.

Think gay rights will make great progress under his administration.

Think the howls of outrage over this were absolutely justified not only in terms of gay rights but also the left/liberal agenda in general.

DC (and the Obama Administration-to-be) is still full of "centrists", DLC-types,the Broders and other Villagers who will at every opportunity urge Obama to throw some liberal idea out the window in order to reach out to conservatives.
After all,it's still a center-right nation, no?

So, maybe next time they will pause for a second and realise they can't simply sacrifice the people who supported them in order to appease the Right

Part of the whole problem of this is wrapped up in symbols vs. reality.

Obama is one of the best things that could have happened to our executive branch (renouncing torture, pledging fidelity to checks and balances, someone who promotes transparency and ethics laws, etc.). So he will (hopefully) deliver on policy. And he's also polite, and hobnobs, with folks who have some solid slice of conservative DNA (gay haters, people very wrong about the Iraq war, etc.). And he talks to them, treats them respectfully, and doesn't involve them in policy at all.
So...what?
There is too much emphasis on symbolic gestures. That was the type of thing that killed the democratic party at the end of the 80s. We have a chance to wear the mantle of the competent majority, which the Democrats wore for so many years...until the 1990s, frankly. And the competent majority includes all kinds of Americans. Even ones with a few unpleasant, ugly, or bigoted characteristics.
But none of us are Saints. And progress is on our side.
By all means, those without their rights should always advocate and persuade. But until the votes are there (which means a majority either supports or enough folks just don't care), enjoy what you have.
But it's silly season.

How many people can list the names of all of the people who gave the invocation at the last 10 inaugurals (without looking them up). Probably not very many. This fact might be put as a footnote in histories written in the future.

Silly season.

People (and 24 news) need something to blab about. Jumping on the new administration is one of them. It's great that this is the worst thing to obsess about (it's a slap in the face to the media to be so boring). Many others noted it earlier; an invocation aint nearly as important as a cabinet position. Criticize if you must, but keep some perspective about it.

And you think hate isn't central to Warren's enterprise?

Um, yes, I do think it's not central to Rick Warren's enterprise. He's doing a fluffy-bunny kinder-gentler non-denominational evangelicalism that's based on reassuring suburban Christians that, yes, they are special and, no, they don't have to do much -- or believe much -- to prove it. He still has positions on culture-war issues (antigay, antichoice, etc.), but he's not spoiling to fight those wars (at least as I understand it). He's softcore, not hardcore. I think this megachurch phenomenon is truly absurd, but it's really not based on hate. Hate comes along for the ride, alas, as you can tell from his statements, but when it comes to conservative Christians, he's well shy of the rightmost.

(Why invite the participation of any conservative Christian? That's a much better question, because I sure as hell wouldn't have. There's the mistake. But I'm not sure why that requires us to act as though Giving The Invocation is a very very important and high-profile function that's sure to loom large in everyone's memory of the day's events.)

I live in Orange County Cali, the thought has never crossed my mind to go to Rick Warren's church. In fact, since the GOP has been in office the past 8 years, I have been turned off by religion.

I've never had any interests in reading or buying Rick Warren's book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

However, people need to WAKE UP.

Understand what's going on. The GOP is doing everything they can to cause a distraction in your life in order to prevent you from seeing what they are doing.

Yes, people are dealing with job insecurity.
Falling home values
Credit card uncertainty-raised interest rates, lower credit limits
eminent domain
foreclosures

The American people have had everything thrown at them including the kitchen sink

But that's what it is to weaken you, then to control you.

Think about it, people are already stressed-out, so when they come with, "The banks are too big to fail, it's going to freeze the credit market..." They make it sound like the earth is ending and you have to do this now - on short notice (scare tactics)

They have gotten you to conform.

As a straight female, I am with the LGBT community all the way.

The LGBT community have the power to bring the church to its knees.

All you have to do, is run campaign of donation solicitations the way Obama did to get a place on the ballot to fight the church.

Yes, you will get a lot of, "that's evil...." and other rhetoric, but who cares. The atheist groups that fought against "school prayer," and they won. The church has since backed off.

They can attack others, but no one can attack them.

I can be one of the first to donate. You have to get on the ballot fighting the church with their tax-exempt status since they want to get involved in politics.

By the way, Rick Warren is trying to sell his new book, boycott the book.
Mike Huckabee the same thing, he's getting media platform, yet trying to sell his book.

You've got to hit below the belt, hit them in the pocketbook. You see the Catholic church is not as vocal since they lost so much money with the child molestation cases.