Stilli I could not add anything further to this.
I agree wholeheartedly. It is all over the web and cable. To write what you have written--better than the others I read--or some of my comments is to open yourself up to an attack as being anti-gay.

If I am truthful and say I do not care then I am anti-gay. If I say that this makes no difference, I am falling into the pockets of evangelists.

At any rate you were able to do something I could not. You took some time, thought about it and put together a good reasoned essay on the subject.

My bet is that reason does not work under these circumstances which is why I wished to evade the entire subject.

Fantastic post.

I have come to much the same place over the past year. From supporting Dennis Kucinich to joining the republcian party, without ever once sacrifising my core principles or my ideas of what a progressive America could look like.

All I did was open myself up to see the other side of the argument.

I think you are absolutely correct about Obama's strategy and why he is so comfortable bringing the fundamentalist Christians into the conversation. At heart, all I know of them is they consider themselves the progressive Christians. They are misguided on a couple of issues. Mostly because of the fear you suggest as the cause. Hearts will indeed soften as they become used to the idea of equal rights without sacrificing "marriage" on the altar of liberalism. Why not make marriage a religious term and make the legal contract between consenting adults a civil union, gay and straight?

I think that is an argument Barack can make and convince most of the country, right and left, to go along. The only ones that can keep that from happening sooner rather than later are liberals, ironically enough.

Wonderful, Still!

To the Christians, I say: Love your neighbor. And Jesus never preached against love. (Ask only of your neighbor what you would ask of yourself.)

To gays longing to marry, I say: Love your beloved, of course, and be kind to your neighbor. Kill them with kindness - if need be! (You catch more flies with honey... as they say.)

Beautiful blog! You've done us a great service.

Thank you for saying what I had a hard time figuring out how to write.

I agree with you for many of the reasons you mentioned, but also this:

We have spent 8 years with nary a blip of protest. Who in the hell are we to get all huffy about this? I don't believe in god, and I think that the professional christians (many of which are in my family), as a political group, have done enormous damage to the world and to our country. Having said that, Rick Warren has shown the ability to educate himself.

He has worked for AIDS awareness; he works for the poor; he does not believe that the world is here to be plundered by humans, and he has spoken about those issues in ways that christians can hear. I know personally how they have a jargon that many of us non-believers find offensive, but he seems to connect on issues that most evangelicals don't care about at all.

He seems (dare I say it?) somewhat open-minded, and I think he may someday see things from a different point of view. So why revile him? Why make this a cause celebre?

We,ALL OF US who have not gone to the White House and demonstrated on a daily basis?

I say to all of us, Including me: Let's get off our high horse, and try to make a difference by including people; by respecting the fact that they arrived where they are by thinking it through, and by expecting that they will listen to us and maybe come to see things in a different way.

If the only way you can defend your idea (per Warren) is that churches have always defined marriage thusly, perhaps it would help to give a few examples of when the church was wrong: Galileo, approving of slavery, OK to beat your wife, poligomy, etc -- let's open up the conversation rather than close it down!

Between this post SI, and Mitchell Abualafia's I think We're seeing some realistic and productive interpretations here at TPM of BHO's actions to date. We've been stuck in this paradigm of the talking heads ranting at the opposition, left or right, with no room for dialogue for too many years. The only way we crack that paradigm is to embrace our ideological adversaries in a uncynical manner and honestly and intellectually debate our different positions. As you say, they're here to stay, whether we like it or not. This is something a younger voter may not have ever seen heretofore in light of the blatant cynicism rampant during this Atwater/Rovian political epoch. I know the decision to include Warren feels like a betrayal to the gay community, and think they are especially aggrieved as it comes on the heels of prop. 8. I do not support Rick Warren, or any other church leader for that matter, but I think BHO's willingness to invite him to present an opening prayer at his inauguration can help open a more meaningful dialogue between Democrats and the religious right. Those of us who feel betrayed by this gesture, (and I think that is truly all it is - a gesture), should take a deep breath, step back, and know that we trounced the right in this election. As such it's our prerogative to be the 'adult' and include them in the ceremony and deliberations. We can continue with the rancor and calumny that has been the hallmark of politics since the Contract with America dudes came to power in the 90s or we can change the tone and actually get some work done.

We will never be truly free until we, and our government, have freedom from religion.

Stilli - that was beautiful and true (I got a little teary).

I did find this interesting:

Give him a chance to make this work. Trust him. I believe he has a plan, a big picture. Let him unfold it. Quit 2nd guessing every move he makes. Quit keeping score. Be patient. We can do this.

Kind of like God, right? Maybe he is the messiah after all...(J/K!)

stillidealistic, I really appreciate your post. I've also enjoyed reading the discussion.

However, there's one aspect to the Warren choice that has gone unnoticed, perhaps because it's somewhat cynical.

Obama is a brilliant politician. Picking Warren is pure political genius.

It's vintage Obama in that he's showing that he does indeed want all voices to be heard even those that deeply offend the left. It's also vintage Obama in that it completely silences any attacks from the right while covering one vulnerability: Reverend Wright.

That sounds sooooo yesterday, I know. But if you're on the back end of a political blow-out, you'll look for ANY reason to attack, and Rev. Wright still makes the GOP salivate.

This is yet another gorgeous political move by the most brilliant man in politics saying, once again, "Checkmate".

A wonderful post, as usual, Stilli. I, too, enjoy reading how your mind works things out.

That said, I'll add my 2 cents and admit that it's a very immature reaction to this whole Warren mess. For the first time in my adult life I actually considered going to the inauguration. I can't remember when I was this happy and this proud that the candidate I supported and worked for won. I wanted to be part of the celebration. I really have felt all along that I was part of this campain, that this win was "my" win, too.

I understand Obama's reasoning in wanting to be inclusive, but damn it, he'll have 4 (or8) years to do that. Why the inauguration? Why the invocation? Why someone who is so opposed to everything progressives stand for in such a prominent position? I'm not a Christian and I've had more than enough of right wing Evangelical fundamentalists being center stage. I am not gay, but Rev. Warren's pronouncements on homosexuality are offensive to me.

I know this is immature, and I know I will eventually get over it, but the way I feel right now is that the biggest, happiest, party to celebrate the greatest political event of my lifetime has just been crashed by a big, prejudiced, homophobic boor.

I suggest we each come up with a blessing for Obama. We can each say it during the inauguration. Or we can have a blog where we write the blessing we would confer. And I'm talking about it having to be a religious blessing. But this man needs all the blessings he can get. And instead of arguing over it, let's enlarge it. Let's all bless him - each in our own way!

I've started a blog for that:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/12/offer-your-own-blessing.php

I love Obama, but viewing even his bone-headed moves as "pure genius" just makes the viewer look stupid.

How about if Obama invited a gay or lesbian who was against "Christian marriage"? Would that be "pure genius" too?

Or how about a racist clergyman or an anti-Semite? Oh wait. Those particular civil rights battles have already been won. Can't backtrack that far and still be regarded as "pure genius."

Right?

Let me speak in words with few syllables so you can understand.

You are an idiot. Your adoring fans are idiots too.

Rick Warren says homosexual relationships are no different from child rape, incest, and polygamy. He actively campaigned for Proposition 8.

You people fail to understand what a disgusting thing this is to the gay community.

Not to mention the publicity, fame, and money that Rick Warren will get from the exposure.

"You people fail to understand what a disgusting thing this is to the gay community."

Plenty of straights also think this was, at best, a "bone-headed" move.

Sadly, this move -- which yes, is purely symbolic -- has put a cloud over what was to be a glorious day. I wish there were a way to undo it. But other than rescind the invitation, I can't think of what that might be.

This essay shows a lack of understanding of the issue and is one of those "don't worry your pretty little head about it" responses.

I fully expect Obama to make mistakes from time to time and the Warren invite was a mistake. If only people like the author of this essay would acknowledge it by actually understanding the issue.

I've had to deal with 8 years of an administration putting their religious beliefs into law and policy.

Enough!!

"Proud to be a TPM idiot!"

I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice this, and I'm sure TPM is not the only site that suffers from this.

But I'm seeing a group-think trend here that would be a problem if it weren't so inconsequential.

This is a civil rights issue. It is not simply a difference in political opinion or judgment re policy.

I don't know how anyone who regards himself or herself as a lefty can get from a civil rights issue to "oh it's just a matter of inclusion and anyway it's only symbolic" -- except by way of group-think, naivete or stupidity.

I'm not saying I feel betrayed or I've changed my mind about Obama or I think this is a rift. But it is a disappointment, and I stand here flabbergasted at the sight of so many people trying to make it "okay."

If we're adults who have learned anything over the past 8 eight years, I would hope we've learned that we don't have to talk ourselves into feeling something is "okay" when in fact it is simply wrong.

Obama is a smart guy and shows every sign of learning quickly from his mistakes. I hope that happens here. But it is possible to support him and still recognize when he's made a bone-headed mistake.

But Lynn Dee, you don't consider yourself and ideologue. So why throw everyone under the representation as having "group-thinked" our way here. I think you can categorize people any which way you want but the way people arrive at said conclusion usually shows a little diversity to say the least. I am sure you are aware that we all carry around our baggage and that baggage in the end makes it quite difficult to distinguish between what we think is objective when it can readily look subjective.

I don't like Rick Warren, his church or his particular views about how life is supposed to work. Unlike Warren, I don't think there is one way to lead a life, but many. I believe the big hang-up for many is simply that Warren is seen as intolerant and therefore all sorts of subject matter (baggage) in people starts ringing red-flags. I will support Obama and yet disagree with this choice, and move one. You all know there is a lot of work to be done!

Josh, You're right and (IMO) you're wrong. It is unfair of me to pronounce that group-think, naivete or stupidity is the only way to decide that this decision by Obama is "okay." It is more likely that it is simply the urge to "make nice" this close to the inauguration. We all want it to be the glorious day that it should be.

But the problem with trying to view this decision as "inclusive" is that it's not. It leaves a whole group of people out. We're saying to gays, "Yeah, I know you'd like to be part of this, and really you are, but just not fully. Not yet." And that makes me sad.

I see that you aren't saying you view the decision as inclusive. You're saying it's a mistake and "moving on." And that's a view I understand. It's very close to mine -- except for this one thing: I simply can't view with equanimity the urge to make something good out of this bone-headed decision.

It's interesting. I had originally intended to write a scathing post about Warren giving Obama's invocation. But before sending it, I just said to myself, "Stop. Think about this. Go read about it and come to a conclusion that makes sense from reasoned thought. Do not think as John McCain did (i.e. recklessly and without proper forethought)."

I did. I'll be honest: I do not like that Warren is giving Obama's invocation. My dad is gay, so I feel slightly insulted by giving Warren such a large and prominent role in the inauguration. But I have to think realistically: Rick Warren is not an extremist. I've heard him speak, I've read things about him, and I can see nothing that strikes me to be as outraged as so many others seem to be. He's not Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I also think many forget that George W. Bush had the Rev. Dr. Luis Leon give his invocation at his 2005 inauguration. It's hard to argue that Leon is a bastion of the right wing. At the time, that upset many on the right (though to the extent that Warren is outright pissing off the left, it's not quite comparable... perhaps that's partially due to the fact that Warren is such a well-known, recognized figure throughout the country).

But SI, I have to say, you're correct. Absolutely so. Same to Orlando. Personally, I just want Obama to get into office and be able to actually make some policy decisions. I want to see whether he will truly enact change in this country such as cleaning up the environment, leading us to energy independence, passing major health care reform, etc., etc. It's for that that I voted for him. It's for that that I worked for him. And it's for that that I'll support him.

When will I agree with every single decision he makes? When will I find that I'm on the same page as him on every issue? It won't happen. My hope is that the majority of my views will find representation. They did during the election. I have little reason to believe they won't during the administration.

FYI, The Billerico Project has the fascinating details of how Rick Warren initially agreed to and then did everything he could to try to get out of a meeting with gay parents in That Weird Hug from Rick Warren."

-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

Wow! I'm in a different time zone than a lot of you, and stay up late, so I was headed for bed about the time you all are getting up, so haven't been here to participate in this morning's conversation.

One thing I am learning as a result of the discussion of this issue is that the compromise that seemed so easy to me, is anything but.

There are very valid points on both sides. Deeply held convictions on both sides.

I admit to having little experience w/ being discriminated against, except as a teenager when I couldn't get a job in fields of work traditionally held by males, and now to a much lesser extent for being a Christian.

I have tremendous empathy for those who live with it on a daily basis. I can only imagine how awful it must be. If I could wave a magic wand and make it go away all at once, I would. But this is reality, and in the real world, changing hearts takes time.

The logic of saying gays are being denied their civil rights is so obvious to many of us, just as it was so obvious that the blacks were in the past. But there are so many people out there that still do not believe that being gay is is not a choice. There are more still who may agree that gays can't help it, but it is still wrong, just as incest and pedophilia are wrong. Yet there are some groups who claim both these activities are perfectly normal. Are those activities in their infancy in terms of being "normalized" in the future? Where do you draw the line?

Throw in that the gay issue is also a religious issue (although I contend that this is extremely murky territory and "religion" is not on a solid footing here) and you have an explosive situation.

Selfishly, I want to bask in the glow of Obama's election and enjoy this Inauguration like I've never enjoyed one before (I'm going to be in Hawaii and have even found myself wishing I could postpone the trip so I could be in the midst of a throng of people who won't even be able to see or hear what is going on, just so I can be there to feel the excitement!) and instead I'm feeling pissy because people have to fight about this RIGHT NOW. Combine that with my sudden realization that compromise isn't going to be as easy as I thought, and I'm in a :-( mood.

I want to be happy right now. I want to be optimistic right now. I want to be idealistic right now. I want you all to quit raining on my parade. I KNOW I'M BEING SELFISH, and for that I apologize.

Thank you all so much for participating in the discussion. Frustrating as it can be, its healthy. It would be easier if we were all in agreement, but...we're Americans...we are NEVER going to agree on everything! Hopefully we will figure out a non-violent way to work it out.

Now I'm going to finish my Christmas shopping, compose my blessing to the PE and have a glass of wine. See you later!

Well said.

Let's wait and hear what Obama himself says in his inaugural speech. That will indicate where he's coming from. I see no evidence he is trying to "exclude" gay people from the inaugural festivities.

Very well written. Must read.

Thanks again SI. Your post has been the catalyst for some a good dialogue, with the odd rant thrown in for flavor. It is understandably a very emotional issue for some. 'No-drama Obama' injected a bit of same into his inauguration with his choice of Warren. As Lux said above, it's good to have the last word, and I expect BHO's last word will invoke less controversy with the LBGT community than his choice of Warren for this role in his inauguration did.

Like most societies on Earth, religious fundamentalist make life miserable for minorities in America. They have a pathological fear of anything different. They want everyone to follow THEIR rules or else dissapear and/or die. They put a tremendous amount of time and energy into controlling other peoples sex lives. This is why abortion and gays are their two biggest fundraisers. The message is DO NOT HAVE SEX OUTSIDE OUR RULES or we will torment you and trash you and belittle you until you die. I am starting to realize that equal rights in America may not happen in my lifetime. If I want to live equally I may have to leave my home and live in Canada, Spain, South Africa ...... somewhere religious fanatics have permanently been put out of the business of running other peoples sex lives. What a choice ....