Tell you what then, let me completely recant my argument about Bill O'Reilly as being poorly thought out, because quite frankly, that isn't what I came here to debate.

On the other hand . . . maybe as a practical matter, it would be a good thing if we returned to the Billy Graham "pastor-to-the-president" model where it was enough for the evangelical community to feel that they had the president's ear. I'm not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle, though.

If millions of people agree with those ideas, I think they should be acknowledged. That's not to say that I think they should be accepted or endorsed, but we damned well better acknowledge their existence because they aren't going away anytime soon. There is power in numbers, the power to vote. And if we fail to acknowledge them, we will continue to wonder how things like Prop 8 passed.

I'm not sure if I believe there is a line or not, because I tend to think that there is no stance unworthy of consideration. There are many that upon examining, I would completely disagree with, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that they don't exist, especially in cases when half of the nation agrees with them. A guy like Fred Phelps, who has a handful of followers, I'm not much concerned with him because he has no power. Millions of people in lockstep do have power though, significant power. That doesn't make their view any more acceptable in my opinion, but it makes it far more worthy of acknowlegement.

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further. Warren showed a bit of respect to Obama by allowing him to speak at his church even though he disagreed with him on just about everything, and Obama is responding in kind - saying I do not agree with you but I will show you the same respect you showed me. Maybe that will have a positive effect and maybe it will not, but if nothing else, it shows that Obama is a man of his word. That's a lot more than I can say about the guy currently occupying the White House.

It's hard not to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room. However, if you look at the history of civil rights in this country, I don't know how much progress was made via respectful dialogue with the man on the street. We had the Civil War. We had Truman deciding to integrate the armed forces. We had the litigation that culminated in Brown. We had Kennedy and Johnson who made it their business to cram the Civil Rights Act down the throat of half the country. We had schools that integrated with the aid of the National Guard. We had civil disobedience in the south, and riots in the north.

Eventually, much as Archie Bunker did when the Jeffersons moved next door, people learned that mixing with black people and treating them equally was okay. I heard a similar piece on NPR recently about a small town coping with the influx of immigrants. Hostility initially, then everybody's cheering for their kids' soccer teams. I agree that change is coming, but it will come from exposure as people know more gay people and see more positive images of gay families to balance out the images of Folsom Street that weird them out. But, now, just hearing people out on theoretical issues isn't going to do anything than give people the pleasure of hearing themselves talk and dig in their heels.

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

It isn't escaping me that this is the point you're trying to make. I just don't think you're correct in its possible impacts. Especially since, as you say, gay marriage is not likely to come up.

I agree a political decision was made: it is better to please this group and piss off that group than to pick someone neither side would have remarked upon. In the long term it may prove to be good politics.

For me, there is a line in the sand. You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but there is a point at which I, personally, will not do anything help prop you up so you can continue expounding on them. Now, for Obama this is probably easier since he does not support gay marriage so for Obama and Warren the question is merely how far they'll go in arguing against it. So, it is good politics? Quite possibly. Is it still a big **** you to a significant portion of the gay community? Yes.

Before I even saw Alex's question, I thought of two examples where the person had worked themselves to the laughingstock point: Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. Sure, they still have their followers, but they did/have become mostly impotent.

They became laughingstocks among those who already disagreed with them, I don't dispute that.

I would strongly contest that either became impotent within the power circle they had. And how they were viewed in larger circles did little to change that. So that is what I am contesting, that by granting visibility and an airing of views this will somehow lead those who already agree with Warren to potentially change their views. That is what I am asking for an example of.

Are there people who laugh at Limbaugh? Absolutely, does that number go up the more mainstream exposure he has? Absolutely. Does that increase in a number represent a diminishment of him? Absolutely not.

Hmm...

I'm caught up with this discussion. I know I'm in the complete minority here, but I APPLAUD Obama for doing what he did. He knows exactly what the hell he's doing. He's a shrewd politician.

He spends two years campaigning on the importance of a UNITED States of America, and the first time he reaches out to a demon, you guys are all immediately all jumping all over him.

I say you're all wrong.

OK, I agree, it's OK to be upset. It's OK not to like Warren. It's OK to feel disgusted that he's going to give the invocation.

But in my opinion, Obama did NOT make a mistake. Period.

Exactly. What do you think Obama meant when he said "there isn't a red America or a blue America"? He didn't say "The people who have been ignored for the past 8 years under the Bush administration want to be acknowledged that we exist, too! Include us in the dialog!" Did he say that? No. He said EVERYBODY TOGETHER. That includes progressives acknowledging that conservatives have just as much a right to sit at the adults' table.

Or how about a Harvey Milk-like option #4: He invited Warren knowing that Warren has a HUGE following ("I'm your President, too"), as a way to start rebuilding the bridge towards learning about the "other side," humanizing people again, helping people on the opposite ends of the spectrum to see that perhaps the other side ain't quite so evil.

Listen, Prop 8 passed. Telling other liberal people to support gay marriage until you're blue in the face isn't going to help. You need to convince the people who voted YES to CHANGE THEIR FRICKEN MINDS. If you dig in your heels and refuse to even be a part of the ballgame, how can you expect to win?!?

YES -- and maybe that was his plan all along! On purpose!

Ding ding ding. "That Obama guy is socialist and he scares he. He wants to keep abortion legal... why did my beloved Warren accept the invitation? What is it that made him say yes? Maybe Warren knows something we don't. Maybe this Obama man isn't quite so bad about everything after all. Maybe I won't oppose everything he wants to pass."

Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness.

Then I won't bother having a discussion with you on this discussion board.