Talking and meeting with Warren is one thing. I would endorse that just as I would endorse reversing the Bush administration’s policy of cutting of all useful dialog with leaders in the so-called Axis of Evil. Not communicating with your enemy, ever, is self-defeating. We don’t have to make our enemies honored participants in our most cherished celebrations, however, to show a good-faith desire to achieve greater understanding. Ehid Olmert (or his successor) doesn’t need to invite Ahmedinejad to a Seder to show he wants peace with Iran.

Is Warren the enemy? I’m afraid the only reasonable answer is yes. Obama claims gays and lesbians should be afforded the same human rights as any other minority groups, i.e. they should be no more expected to tolerate a bigot in their midst than blacks or Jews, I would imagine. What is a man who, without hesitation or remorse, declares gays and lesbians the moral equivalent of pedophiles and beastialists? Who throws the full weight of his wealth and stature behind a constitutional amendment, the first of its kind, to strip an entire class of people of a legal right they once enjoyed? I don’t care how many AIDS victims he’s saved, Warren’s misdeeds are only forgivable when he rescinds his position and works to reverse the damage in CA he’s helped cause.

Until that time, he simply has no place in an Inauguration, no more than David Duke would, or, for that matter, Jeremiah Wright. Surely a man of Obama’s intelligence must realize how untenable any argument for Warren’s participation must be in the face of these facts. All except, perhaps, the most calculating and amorally pragmatic sort, the sort that regards Warren as very useful for something.

Otis, Sean is a devout Leftist. You cannot expect anyone, including Sean, to be fully rational about the fundamental tenets of his religion. You might want to cut him some slack in this area and focus on his posts about physics.

When it comes to marriage, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights. Both must marry someone of the opposite gender. In Texas we recently passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. When someone walks into the county office to apply for a marriage license, no one examines them to see if they are a homosexual in order to deny them a “right.” No one knows or cares what their sexual preface is. There are many homosexuals who have been married. The recent governor of New Jersey is an example.

There are restrictions on who may become legally married and those restrictions apply equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Texas, one must be 16 years of age, cannot marry a close relative, etc.

Is a grandmother being denied the “right” to marry her grandson? Sean’s argument based on “rights” and “bigotry” is just not rational. If he wants two boys to be able to marry, then make a rational case. Appealing to “rights and bigotry” is a non-starter.

The many Americans who wish to deny gays and lesbians the rights we give to heterosexuals are bigots, just as the many Americans who long wished to deny other races the rights we gave to Caucasians were bigots. If you wan to deny equal rights to people who aren’t hurting you or anyone else, then that’s what you are.

Some day we’ll get to the point where people who hold such views will be embarrassed to admit them in public, but we’re not nearly there yet.

Also note that a majority of US citizens oppose same-gender marriage. Every time the government approval of same-gender marriage was on the ballot (about 30 states), it was decisively defeated. To equate opposition to same-gender marriage with hate, bigotry and intolerance is complete nonsense. You would be applying that pejorative to the majority of the people in the US.

If someone thinks that two boys getting married is good for society and should be legalized by the government, then make a reasoned case for it. Simply calling opponents bigoted, hateful and intolerant, as in this blog, accomplishes nothing helpful.

If someone says “cutting the capital gains tax will increase Federal revenues,” or “invading Arab countries will help spread democracy through the Middle East,” or “faith in Jesus is the key to entering Heaven,” these are ideas with which I disagree and am willing to debate. If someone says “homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals,” that is bigotry which only deserves condemnation.

Are you arguing that there aren’t such things as dangerous ideas? It seems to me very obvious that some ideas are very dangerous–bigotry being a prime example. Not every idea or every value or moral expressed is a good one, some are harmful and dangerous.

The tolerance that most “elite progressives” expound is a tolerance for those diversities in people that do nothing to harm anyone else. Homosexuality is one of these things, it doesn’t hurt anyone, unless that person goes out of their way to be offended by it. However, a hatred and intolerance for these diversities is harmful, and there is no reason to be supportive or accepting of those views–at least not when they are being spread and being used as a basis to harm other people (example: Proposition 8).

It doesn’t make someone a bigot to not tolerate the KKK or Al-Qaeda, but it does make someone a bigot to preach hatred against homosexuals.

How sad…

“This time, though, the decision to get involved with Saddleback was actually not Obama’s. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, put together the program for the swearing-in ceremony. Congress, not Obama, invited Warren (as well as scheduling a musical performance by Aretha Franklin; here’s hoping she doesn’t reprise the 2005 inaugural performance of John Ashcroft’s “Let the Eagle Soar”).”

via http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/17/rick_warren/index.html

Still no less of a horrible choice, but I it’s much less surprising for Congress to be pandering shamelessly to evangelicals.

(I suppose I should rephrase that question to avoid provoking a round of logomachy over the word homophobe. Ok, here: Are there any evangelicals who support gay marriage or support ending the legal institution of marriage?)

Why would that be the case?