Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

This from the Washington Times yesterday

Hmm, I think my reaction, as someone who would be trying to ameliorate with such a choice, would be something like, "Seriously, George? Not buying it."

This whole thing is just more of the O'Reilly definition of "fair and balanced". It's the fallacy that to be "fair" and "accepting" one has to give equal weight to all viewpoints. There's a difference between allowing everyone the opportunity to state their views vs. having to take them all seriously.

Right, which is why I was very clear in stating that it isn't the protests themselves that I have a problem with.

On a slight tangent, I spent an ill advised amount of time in the trenches over at Change.gov in the comments section.

First off, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the level of discourse there was well above average for blog comment threads. Well above. Even at its nastiest, people remained relatively civil and well spoken, on both sides.

What was particularly gratifying, though, was that the people defending the selection, and ultimately defending the ban on gay marriage, were doing a great job of proving my point for me, namely that opposition of same sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma and nothing else. Here is how every single one of the conversations I got into over there proceeded:

Me (or some other like minded commenter): Angry at the choice of Warren
Defender: You're not being inclusive. Besides, he's just defending his beliefs. [insert bad analogy that equates supporting same-sex marriage with preventing religious freedom]
Me: Actually, no, Warren's free to believe whatever he wants still, he's just not free to legislate it
Defender: ....Oh yeah? Well God said gays are icky!
Me: That's nice. Good thing god didn't write the Constitution. Not a basis for law. Thanks for playing.
Defender: ............

Over and over again in various forms, the most common alternate form being, "Marriage has always been that way!" leading to the simple miscegenation rebutal. Without fail, no matter how rational they were trying to be, they all eventually had to fall back on, "Oh yeah, well God said so!" And once I called them on that, they never responded.

It was frustrating to see so many people willing to legislate religious doctrine. But it was comforting to see in practice what I had known in theory, that when pressed, religious doctrine is all they have to stand on. And that when you finally force them to face the fact that they're trying to get "God said so" into the constitution, they shut up.

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people. This isn't Fred Phelps wacko that nobody pays attention to; this is someone who sold 20 million copies of a book he wrote. His influence isn't merely Orange County, it is worldwide. People are listening to this man in great numbers and I don't think that comparing their hero to a KKK member is going to change one single mind in the bunch. And that's a problem, because I do think that many of their minds are changeable. The harsh reality is that millions upon millions of Americans do not believe that gay people should have equal rights, and angering and galvanizing them into a more solidified front is simply not the best path to progress. There are far more effective tactics in my opinion.

Neither is honoring one of their most influential leaders.

With all due respect, I just don't see it that way. It isn't some great honor that is going to remembered for centuries like a monument in a national mall. It is a small token gesture in the grand scheme of things, but it is also a representation of Obama's exact platform that he campaigned on. It's just that when he said that he would be inclusive of all viewpoints, most people never considered that it meant being inclusive of viewpoints they strongly disagreed with.

But if we are EVER going to get away from the deep political divides that are fracturing this country, that can only come from giving BOTH sides a little respect. Bush said he would do that and failed miserably because he never really meant it. Obama apparently means it, and I'm hopeful that some good can come from it, even if it means that a guy that I disagree with is allowed to give a three-minute prayer on national TV, especially considering that I highly doubt this invocation will mention one word about gay marriage.

For the record, I would have been nearly, if perhaps not equally, as disgusted if he had, instead of Rev. Lowrey, chosen Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I voted for Obama because I hoped he would move away from propping up loud mouthed egos who have vested interests in continuing to polarize the country. Rick Warren is one, Jesse Jackson is one. It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

I listen to my co-workers talk about RW and they think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's seriously scary how much influence this man has over his followers. Not his religion, him. He could easily form a cult, and in a way he has.

The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration.

We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face.

It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move.