Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.

He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution. He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.

I think our biggest disagreement is on the amount of credence this gives. I also don't think that Warren is "the most radical" by any means. He may be the most popular and powerful though. He was voted one of the 100 most influential people of last year.

He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution.

Here, you lost me because I don't find being against gay marriage to be a reasonable position, regardless of who the leader is. Real change would be doing away with this religious invocation altogether. And progress towards resolution will come from real policy, along with the changing of minds - not from choosing a different pastor who is also against gay marriage but less influential. All in my humble opinion, of course.

He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges.

I don't see it as appeasement, but rather representation - not of a vocal minority, but a vocal majority. It's easy to write this guy off as a blowhard nutcase, but I suspect he represents far more people's views than you realize - people, who in my opinion present the most formidable obstacle we face. Polarization comes from simply writing them off as unimportant. Changing their minds is incredibly important. And again, I don't think this is about trying to reach or change Warren; I think it is about opening the door to reaching his followers. We obviously have differing views about that approach and about its effectiveness, but I'm just calling it as I see it.