Yes, we can.

[Alex]

People may not change their minds after being yelled but governments frequently do (and all I really care about is government). But I do agree that many aspects of the protests have been misguided from a PR angle.

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

As for the big tent it doesn't strike me as surprising that the symbolism of a purely symbolic invitation is being taken seriously. Quite clearly the calculus was that upsetting one smaller group that has nowhere else to go politically (it isn't like the gay lobby can run to the Republicans with their support) was acceptable to mildly appease a larger group that barely supports him. If his ultimate real actions are good and this loosens the ropes for him to accomplish those goals then it'll have been a properly placed bet.

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

Here's my issue with the selection. As I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios.

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.

or

2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."

Either one says that he simply does not care about the movement for gay rights, and either one deserves a loud response that everyone will hear.

Of course, there's always the conspiratorial 3rd option.

3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.

It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process.

I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

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

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

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.