Jeremiah Wright should come, he's funny.

no one is going to make everyone happy but i think he's a good choice. tons of people read his book and believe he gave them a new hope for their lives. doesn't the connection seem obvious? besides, a lot of americans have voted the to ban gay marriage across the nation. cali just seems to gain more headlines. so i think the greater public is cool with this guy. just a thought.

I think he's a good choice.

I think people focus on my state (CA)'s ban on gay marriage because we seem to be a really liberal and progressive state but the passing of this prop. seems to say the opposite.

I like Obama overall, but he was never a supporter of gay marriage so I don't see how this choice is so far off the mark in political views.

In fact, if anything disturbs me it is Rev.'s giving inauguration speeches at all. In this country it seems inappropriate.

Jessie, why do you feel that way?

Although I do agree with the first part of what you said. It's not like Obama supported gay marriage, so how is the "No" option accurate?

Good choice.

I agree with the first part of what Jessie said too.
I dont think he ever said anything about supporting it.

I can see why he choose Warren but I'm not sure it will prove to be worth the effort in the future.

I think it is an interesting choice, and maybe it will make some of the more conservative types realize that he will be their President too, and that he is sincere in respecting other views and taking various opinions into account. It seems kind of an olive branch to me.

Don't they have an Invocation at all inaugurations?

I dont know, I wont be able to concentrate on anything else but that sweet 90's goatee

Ha, CG!

Reverend Joseph Lowery will give the benidiction. Reverend Lowery is a supporter of gay marriage.

It could be worse--Warren's no Hagee--but I have to say I don't like this.

There is not a simple dichotomy of views on gay marriage. Just because Obama and Warren don't support gay marriage doesn't mean they're on the same page. Obama came out against Prop 8.

I just don't think it's appropriate to give Warren this kind of forum. He is trying to build this false reputation for himself as a moderate, but he has said that the only difference between him and Dobson is "a matter of tone."

I don't want someone who compared same sex marriage to incest and pedophilia to be given a national platform.

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do. … Most people, you know… I have many gay friends, I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes, no church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of “A Purpose-Driven Life” helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia.

But I liked what Ann Marie Cox said about the whole matter:

My point on the Warren thing: All those upset about it are exactly the people he takes for granted. You were going to vote for McCain?

But I will say: Warren is, at least, a symbol and not an actual endorsement of anything. Better a symbol than an gay marriage amendment.

At first I thought, wow that's an OK choice. Warren is likable enough, and it sends a message of bi-partisanship or at least an olive branch to conservative Christians. BUT, at the same time, Obama is giving Warren a great and awesome privilege that I do not think he deserves. For me, it's not what it says about Obama that is problematic, but what it says about Warren.

It puts Warren in the prime spotlight as America's most important minister and yet he supported Prop 8, which I believe is unconstitutional. Whether or not Obama was sending a political message or not, by choosing Warren he legitimizes his stance on Prop 8.

Two more things:

One, I seriously f*cking hate when people talk about the god damn "historical" definition of marriage. It's inaccurate, and no one (aside from Jon Stewart) ever seems to call anyone out on it! Marriage has historically oppressed women, been a means of trading them, has excluded various races, and has very commonly involved multiple wives.

Two, I wish we could have a president who could be politically viable and still be like, "This is stupid. Obviously gay people deserve this right like everyone else." But! If I had to choose, honestly, I'd choose a healthy economy or not being at war over gay marriage any day of the week. This is knucklehead stuff, and it's too bad the President gets bogged down with so many wedge issues (gay marriage, flag burning, prayer in schools, official language, etc) that keep him from focusing on actually doing his job.

That whole "non-debate" thing with Obama and McCain was completely lame. Anyway...

Yeah, I can see how it's an "olive branch" of sorts, but I can also see why some people are p!ssy about it. So, eh. Don't think this will affect Obama that negatively going forward.

...and TS, I agree.

True, you said everything I was thinking but am too sleepy to articulate.

jude c - I agree, Hagee would be worse! I don't like yellers. I don't really feel one way or another about this, not a big Warren fan either. I'd rather see Joel Osteen, that could happen, right?

and btw, I probably fall under the conservative label, but gay marriage isn't an issue to be fought against in my mind. People want to make a loving life-long commit to each other? How is that bad in any way?

Foxie - I don't see what place blessing has at a political event, albeit a glorified party, in a secular country. If the president wants to blessed later for his or her personal reasons, sure, but it why is it a public ceremony. It seems to be endorsing a specific religion over others.

My point is Obama's said specifically he isn't for gay marriage, but supports some kind of civil union. I'm not going to pussyfoot and pretend otherwise. Him, McCain, and Clinton (Hilary, not Bill...they actually disagree) were all equal on that platform. We tend to read into personal feelings and agendas based on being Dem or Rep, but in truth we don't know Obama's sentiments on the matter.

I wonder why Rick Warren giving the invocation is recieving more press and attention than Joseph Lowery giving the benediction. Reverend Lowery has stated:
"He said that if you are one who says, “I believe in human rights for all people, except for…” then you really don’t believe in human rights or equality. To believe in equality and human rights is to believe in it for all people. If you don’t, then you are, according to the Reverend, creating an oxymoron and certainly not standing up for equality. He said no matter what race, color, religion, creed, sex, gender OR sexual orientation… we are all deserving of human rights, civil rights and equality. The Reverend said he “sometimes wonders about people who are so homophobic.” Quoting Hamlet, he said, “Me thinks you doth protest too much.” The audience responded with laughter and applause. He continued, “If a person is a secure in their sexuality, they have no time to waste on sneaking around to see what you are doing.”
http://www.interstateq.com/archives/1809/

True Do me a favor and not Use Gods name to make your point.

Respectfully, no.

No surprise there.

I was kind of hoping Tom Cruise could give the invocation. I mean, Scientology is grossly under-represented in this country.

True, you expressed perfectly the concerns I think a lot of us have about Warren:
"I just don't think it's appropriate to give Warren this kind of forum. He is trying to build this false reputation for himself as a moderate, but he has said that the only difference between him and Dobson is "a matter of tone."
You're fabulous.

Liliblu, I think the Warren pick gets more attention than Lowry because squeeky wheels always do - what controversy is there in common sense and decency.

Em - don't give Cruise any ideas!

who cares, the dude isn't in his cabinet? In my opinion this isn't even worth debating.

I take it back, Steph! Cruise can keep his Xenu...wherever he keeps his Xenu.

Xanadu?

"My point is Obama's said specifically he isn't for gay marriage, but supports some kind of civil union"And people forget we already have civil unions in ca. So I don't know what the issue is there. And I agree, he is giving a speech. It isn't like Obama is taking his advice on ANYTHING. Not even worth a debate. If Obama thinks he is a good man and worthy of giving a speech, that's Obama's decision and I don't anyone should make more out of this.

At first blush this seems like a brilliant move on Obama's part.

If a "traditional blessing" is part of the inaguration, then he has to find a religious figure to give it.

If he picks someone like Wright, it freaks the right out.
But he obviously can't pick someone like Hagee.

So he has to lean towards the middle.

I don't know too many religious figures embracing gay marriage (and as someone pointed out - neither has Obama).

In other words, there aren't a lot of pastors out there that fully support the liberal agenda, and if there were, and Obama selected one, he'd get a lot of sh*t.

However, the liberals are basically in his pocket. So he can afford to piss them off a little by choosing someone like this.

I like the choice, in that it is reaching out across party and racial lines. This accomplishes more than reaching out to the homosexual community.

Perhaps if you had asked instead of commanded. Or at least offered some kind of reasoning. You're welcome to take another swing at it.

oh, God!

Oh, Zeus! Buddha damn it all!

oh, Chaos! What in Ganesha's name is going on here!

Has anyone else read The Year of Living Biblically? There is a biblical command not to utter the name of any other gods, so the guy can't say any of the days of the week since they are all named after Roman gods (I think). So instead of "Let's get lunch on Thursday," he'd have to say "Let's get lunch four days from now."

I can only guess this character wasn't an astronomer?

It's not a character! It's non-fiction. This guy tried to follow all of the laws of the Bible for one year. Such a good read. It sounds like it's going to be all religion bashing, but he ends up finding unexpected meaning in even the silliest sounding rules and it actually did more to make me think favorably of religion than pretty much anything else ever has.

never mind really, respectfully no, i wont ask again.

Fair enough.

Sounds like a great book. I will have to pick that up. I forgot that you are a bibliophile, TS!

It is excellent. I'm very into non-fiction lately. People have such interesting stories to tell about their real lives.

I can't miss a chance to plug goodreads.com, my favorite website for finding good books to read.

Eh, TS doesn't share those religious beliefs, so I don't see why she should adhere to those religious rules. I don't think she's being disrespectful by saying that, IMO. Just sayin'.

UGH UGH UGH UGH. Just because there are already civil unions in CA, does not mean that they carry all the legal rights of marriage. I am all for Civil Unions if they have the same legal rights.

Also don't you just LOVE when people say they aren't homophobic because they have gay friends?? Yeah I think it's just precious.

em, well when you put it that way, if a person doesnt share anothers beliefs...than its okay to offend them because the same "rules" (or as I call them "common courtesy") dont apply, i will totally remember that.

As many times as people on this site have gone out of their way to offended many a non-White, non-Christian, non-straight person...yeah, please do remember that!?!