Let me say for the record that I wish President-Elect Obama had not chosen Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Personally, beyond his vocal and occasionally repulsive opposition to gay and abortion rights, I see him as a peddler of the kind of bland, gauzy personal-gratification spirituality that turns religion into pop-psychology. I would put The Purpose-Driven Life next to the Mitch Albom collection on the bookshelf of books I don't own. But that's hardly for me to say, as I'm a thoroughly secular person with no real business commenting on the spiritual seriousness of anyone's reading choices.


Here's part of Obama's response to a question about his choice of Warren :

I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

I was heartened by this response because Obama's first instinct was not what we've come to expect from Washington Democrats: he didn't try to soften their disagreements or play down Warren's objectionableness. He firmly stated his support for gay and reproductive rights. That's good.

But many people have taken issue with the "we can disagree without being disagreeable" line Obama directed toward Warren. John Aravosis sums it up:

Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama? We don't see you embracing too many of them in the name of learning to agree to disagree. Or does your desire to create a new "atmosphere," and reach out to our enemies, stop when it's your own people, your own children, you'd be betraying? Funny how you only reach across the aisle when it's someone else's family, gay families in particular, getting the shaft.

Man, I feel that. Obama's choice of Warren is a kick in the gut for all of us who support gay rights and especially for gay families and those of us who come from gay families. That said, in 2008 America, Rick Warren simply is not the equivalent of an openly racist (or insert your own -ist here) preacher. He should be - and I think all of us ought to be treating him as such. But I'm not sure that Obama ought to be treating him as such.

Warren, whether we like it or not (and I certainly don't), is just about the best-known, most admired evangelical preacher in the world. If there were an openly racist cleric in America who'd managed to get the kind of following Warren has, then the analogy would hold. Despite holding some views that ought to relegate him to fringe status, Warren is quintessentially mainstream. How do we deal with that? I just watched Rachel Maddow have a great conversation with SF mayor Gavin Newsom, and they displayed two different responses from two people who are equally disgusted with Warren's anti-gay views.

Rachel believes that Obama ought to rescind the invitation (though she knows he won't). In this view, what we do with views that are unacceptable is we isolate them. Obama needs to show leadership by demonstrating that Warren's beliefs are bigotry, plain and simple, and there is no place for them in our America.

Newsom doesn't think Obama should have invited him, but is hopeful that by bringing in someone so incredibly popular and influential, but maintaining his opposition to those of Warren's views that are so offensive, Obama has the opportunity to spark a productive dialogue. And especially if Obama follows through with his promised pro-gay rights agenda (which Newsom said would be the best way for Obama to make up for making this unpopular choice), Obama can demonstrate an ability to find common ground with those with whom he and his supporters disagree - without compromising any actual legislative principles.

I am genuinely torn between these two views, which I think are both valid. Of course, given that Obama has made the choice and ain't gonna take it back, I'm hopeful about the second option.

But I also think it's important to realize that Rick Warren simply isn't Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. That's like saying Chuck Hagel might as well be Rick Santorum. Yes, Warren's views on gays are odious - but he hasn't made his ministry and his career out of those views. In fact, Warren gets a lot of flak from the Religious Right because he doesn't use his vast pulpit more often to hammer social issues. He holds the requisite right-wing religious social views, but he prefers to talk about fighting AIDS and global warming and Darfur, when he's not talking about finding your purpose or whatever his books are about. (The exception is obviously his advocacy for Prop 8 in California recently, which is of course reprehensible. I'm not defending the man here.)

And Warren's getting flak from the Right right now for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. Let's not forget that this isn't just, as many have suggested, Obama putting Warren up on a pedestal to honor him. This is Warren honoring Obama. If I understand the purpose of the "invocation" correctly, Warren will, at least in part, be invoking God to bless Obama and his Presidency. Will millions of Warren's followers watch the inauguration and think, "I feel so much better about Warren now that he has Obama's approval"? I'm guessing, if anything, more of them will see it the other way around.

And that's important. When Obama starts implementing his social agenda, it will be mightily helpful if religious Americans who are more conservative than he see him as a trustworthy, reasonable opponent, rather than a crusading anti-Bible liberal (the way most leading Democrats get caricatured these days). I've heard several gay rights advocates point out how unacceptable it is that gay rights is being treated as a policy difference rather than a moral imperative. It is unacceptable. It's shameful. And yet politically and legislatively, we may be better off if Obama can successfully frame the debate with evangelicals over gay rights as a friendly but firm disagreement. Bill Clinton threw gays and lesbians under the bus legislatively (don't ask don't tell, defense of marriage act). If Obama wants to pal around with some anti-gay preachers while enacting his pro-gay rights agenda, I won't complain too much.

Again, I wish Obama hadn't chosen Warren. It's hurtful and disappointing. I would have preferred one of the many religious leaders in this country who embrace gay and reproductive rights. But unfortunately, none of those people would have been the most popular preacher in the country. And so I disagree with some of my fellow liberals who say there's nothing to be gained from this. If Obama holds to the equality agenda he's promised, the Warren invocation could be the first step toward nudging the evangelical community toward being less of a monolithic foe. And if Obama breaks his promises...then inviting Warren to the inauguration will be the infinitely smaller tragedy.