WaPo: Obama's Inaugural Mistake

By Joe Solmonese
Friday, December 19, 2008; Page A35
It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade.

Yes, the Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of the humongous, evangelical Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., has a sound message on poverty. And certainly, in the world of politics, there is a view that Barack Obama owes Warren for bringing him before fellow evangelicals, despite fierce opposition during the heat of the presidential campaign.

But here's the other thing about Warren, the author of the bestselling book "The Purpose Driven Life": He was a general in the campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, which dissolved the legal marriage rights of loving, committed same-sex couples.

For that reason, inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too.

We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"?

It is likely that one of two scenarios played out during behind-the-scenes inaugural planning, both of them equally troubling. The first possibility is that it was suggested that Warren is the correct voice to lead the inauguration because his selection would send a message of inclusion to evangelicals. And when someone at the table said, "Gay America will be offended by that choice," the quick answer was, "That's fine, we'll deal with it. We invited the gay marching band."

more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121802788.html

Page A35!

And A35 is probably the op ed section of the paper.

will not always agree with what Obama does. I think Rahm is a huge mistake, but will have to stay with Obama because he comes closer to me politically than the other guy. Others will have to do the same

Sometimes you just disappear. No phone calls, no emails, no door knocking, no cash.

And eventually justice will prevail. We just have to wait for a generation of so to die. Sorry, but it looks like the only way.

I supported Obama in a swing state in both the primary and the general election. If enough GLBTQ folks and supporters of human rights back another candidate in 2012, Obama could be looking at a one-term presidency. Is that what he wants?

This is a matter of human rights. I don't believe a Democratic administration should tolerate hate, and I would not be willing to donate or volunteer for a candidate who thinks our tent needs to be big enough to accommodate religious bigots.

That is the essential point that is being missed in these posts insisting that we be tolerant of bigotry.

I DO NOT like or agree with the man! (Warren) But, I am (after MUCH thoughtful reflection)NOT upset with P.E. Obama for choosing him. P.E.Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said he wanted to do during the campaign - bring people together. I believe that this is his purpose in choosing Warren and Lowery. "Fair and balanced"! Though I definitely fall on the side of Lowery, I would be disappointed if P.E. Obama succumbed to the far left on this issue! I hope he maintains his choice with head high - as he is only living up to his campaign pledge to make this country more inclusive! I wish the far left would think about these things before they start "slamming him" for living up to what he promised during the campaign.

and it's just driving the base away. He's not bringing anybody together with this move. Quite the opposite.

People like Rick Warren believe that anything goes when it comes to "winning the world to Christ" or some similar goal. Warren would as soon throw Obama under the bus if the opportunity presented itself.

Wait and see.

Warren has already proven himself to be a liar and a snake to Obama.

He could've sent a strong message by putting a leader of AIPAC on stage with a pro-Palestinian professor or two. Or how about the Klan and the NAACP. This is buffoonery. It's not bringing people together. It's pandering to hatemongers and hoping their success rubs off on you. It's a wink and a nod to those who agree that LGBT people are rapists and pedophiles and that our relationships are equivalent to marrying dogs and box turtles. This is the kind of hate this man spews. The wink and the nod signify: I won't let these fags get too far. I tolerate them. They do a lot of heavy lifting for me. But they mean nothing to me. That is the only message this will EVER send. EVER.

If you're going to invite hatemongers, bring David Duke up there too while you're at it.

He doesn't care what the children of gay and lesbian families hear and see at his inauguration.

Bigots are OK so long as long as they're the right kind of bigots.

Does the Warren pick seem to be inspiring unity, or just exacerbating division?

his apologists had to start spinning that human rights are a fringe issue to stick up for him. pretty fucking SICKENING eh?

Far left, my hindfoot. How far left do you have to be to realize Warren is a creep who makes his living promoting hatred?

Oh my! What will become of us? The known communist rag like the Washington Post making the SAME arguments in piece that are picked apart by the Obama is not wrong gang right here.

If that's what Solmonese really thinks- he's profoundly myopic (or else engaging in subtle Post propaganda).

Warren thinks of folks who fight poverty, etc.m as MARXISTS unless they're doing so in order to gain salvation or "save" poor souls.

Note our to GLBT memebrs- granting Warren this historical honor is a MUCH broader insult to the American people than the hot button issue of gay marraige. This guy is every bit as much of a fundamentalist nutter as Dobson- just a bit brighter, and better able to disguise his delusional views under a view of "soft spokeness."