In other words, for your dynamic to work, the people trying to expand the boundaries have to avoid acknowledging that their leaders need to unify by moving center. If the radicals do acknowledge it, then there is no pressure from the fringe, and nothing moves.

And thanks for the blog as a whole. You do good work. Happy holidays!

That is certainly one option, but I don't see any evidence that that is the route Obama will take.

Another option for unity is to force two groups together until the surface tension breaks and a new whole is formed. That's unity that requires courage to implement and it's exactly what I saw in Obama's Philadelphia speech. Yes, there will still be people pissed off who will never accept change (War of Northern Aggression, anyone?), but you can't worry about them.

Change never occurs until the center accepts it, the edges advocate for lots of things that never make it to the mainstream.

Also, to reiterate a point that has been made in other threads, can we let the man take the oath of office before trying to knock holes?

I think Al Giordano has the right idea-- Obama organized his voters during the campaign, and now it is time his voters organized him. Make him move our way. Look at those strikers in Chicago. They didn't wait for Obama's approval-- they took action and Obama came along after the fact to say they were right.

Real organizing means gearing up for the next fight. The Warren pick is over-- we/you lost. What's up next? Obama's been thinking one step ahead of the GOP all year-- he'll do the same to the left if we don't organize and strategize.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-explicitly-bans-unrepentant.html

Putting in the hyperlink now.

Obama has this ability to have people think he is what they want out of a leader and at least from what I can tell, this is on the people, not Obama. It is both a blessing and a curse for him. Unlike a phony like Edwards, who had the nerve to say his stint at a hedge fund was to understand poverty, Obama has made his stances clear on a variety of items. Gay people knew or should have known that Obama was against gay marriage and that he did attend Warren's sit down. When Clinton bragged about passing DOMA, he did it on evangelical radio station ads, Warren's discussion was on national TV.

I think we will see similar outrages from the Europeans. While Obama was getting mobbed in Germany over the summer, some on the German left actually noticed that Obama wants to expand the war in Afghanistan. That isn't the change the Euros want, especially since it means Obama wants them to pitch in a bit more.

Also, when you use "change", it is bound to mean different things to different people. Gays are going to want marriage, unions are going to want tariffs and an end to secret ballots, populists want a return to the 90% tax bracket on millionaires. I know some Obama supporters whose change is so self-centered, it involves being able to go to Europe without having to apologize for being American.

So you mix in a message of change, with political Beatlemania, an ignorant electorate, delcining economy and the long lasting hangover of a hugely unpopular President, you get expectations that no man can live up to. I didn't even vote for the guy and I find myself cutting him more slack than some of those who previously worshipped him.

About The Bible
The Bible is God´s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5).

Most churches do. In order to be a member, you essentially agree with these statements. Why should any person who lives unrepentantly as a homosexual (or adulterer, or drug user, etc.) despite clear Biblical teaching to the contrary, receive church membership?

And I think you're overspeaking to say he bans gays from his church. That has a completely different implication.

But that's totally different from banning.

"I think you're overspeaking to say he bans gays from his church. That has a completely different implication."

From Warren's own site--which he's since changed--but included in the hyperlink:

"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted as a member at Saddleback church. That does not mean they can't attend church--we hope they do! God's Word has the power to change our lives"

Actually, Lincoln insisted that the US government do nothing to extend slavery, which he believed would kill it eventually: and so did the slaveholding South, which is why they tried to secede. He also believed that it was impossible, as a matter of Constitutional law, for any state to leave the Union.

So he conducted his Administration strictly according to the law (including the arrests of those legislators in Maryland). He didn't have any legal authority to emancipate slaves, so he didn't -- EXCEPT where there was an active rebellion against the lawful government, which is how the Emancipation Proclamation was written.

But he absolutely turned the war to preserve the Union (which was always its lawful purpose) into a war to eradicate slavery (which was always its mission) -- and it's more than a bit ungenerous to turn that into "blacks be damned." (For one thing, Lincoln realized -- hell, he never forgot -- that when the war was over, Dred Scott would still be Constitutional law: he was grappling with questions in 1862 and 1863 that most folks didn't even realize were problems until 1866, when he was dead.)

How does that blind you to what's happening now?

Because healing the country IS taking it in a new direction. American democracy is granular (if you want to get all poli sci about it); made up of 435 gerrymandered Congressional districts and 100 Senators, a dozen or 20 of whom are elected by fewer voters than the Reps are.

Obama just might understand that his inspirational messages require a practical application to the Blue Dogs and DLC guys, not to mention a 60-vote (if not a unanimous consent) strategy in the Senate, to get anything much DONE. Do you understand that?

The Lincoln parallels get overdone, so give him this much: Lincoln always understood that the William Lloyd Garrisons were WRONG -- flat out, irrefutably wrong -- to insist that their opposition to slavery was so morally empowering that they could let the South keep it forever, "wayward sisters, go in peace". Britain would have recognized the Confederacy, the cotton fields would have continued to supply the mills of Manchester, so there is no particular reason to imagine that slavery wouldn't have endured for generations.

Given what Lincoln did -- getting the South to fire the first shot, keeping Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri from seceding, accepting unthinkable losses, then preserving the Union the only way possible ONLY AFTER THE PUBLIC WAS READY FOR IT, and winning re-election (particularly with Army votes) -- don't ya think "blacks be damned" is a bit much? (Re-read what Douglass said about him, and be shamed.)

Then think about what you might be missing about Obama with those blinders on. (Watch for him to dump don't ask, don't tell as an Executive order, f'r instance.)

I haven't blogged about this, nor do I plan to - it depresses and angers me that anyone would see Warren's hateful words about gay people as somehow acceptable or appropriate to the point where I can barely put together to sentences of reasoned thought... that's no way to write, and it took me a while to learn it, the hard way.

But still. What bugs me more than the depressing, obvious politics of the pick is the dancing of Obama supporters determined to dress this as no big deal or, to gently dismiss TNC's view here, that it's wonderful when we can have a spirited discussion about whether my very existence is acceptable or appropriate. It's a reminder - just to unpack another can of worms - that the current divides over gay issues on the left are deeper and darker than many like to face. I value conflict and argument as much - probably more - than the next person. That does not extend to allowing yet more time to be wasted on deciding whether my life and my actions are equivocable to pedophiles and child molesters. That's crap. It's a waste of my time, and it's tiring. I can't waste my time giving Rick Warren this kind of attention... but don't for one second assume that there's a lot of gay people who think any of this is just okay. Or that it's just politics. It isn't. It's our lives.

Picking Warren appeals, primarily, to the evangelicals. In this past election, Obama got 24% of evangelicals (up 3% from Kerry according to Fivethirtyeight.com). He received 70% of the LGBT vote, which is actually down 7 points from Kerry. Which of those numbers is going to move up or down as a result of picking Warren?

I don't get it. Seems to me Warren widens the divide, instead of narrowing it.

Obama is a P.O.L.I.T.I.C.I.A.N. Obama's loopier opponents are (voluminously) on record as accusing him of being a socialist/radical/terrorist/babykiller/antiChrist (pick several). And, while not a lot of people with brains can take those folk seriously, they do successfully set a tone, and that tone has an effect on the large majority of the country that is paying attention casually, at best. (your low-information voters.)

Unfortunately, but as a matter of fact, Obama (the first black president, in case you hadn't heard) still needs to sell himself as, well, normal to all those low-information voters, until his novelty wears off with them. Like it or not, from his Hawaiian shirts to the 30 lbs he ought to lose to the right-tilted morality he preaches, there's nobody more normal than Rick Warren. For Obama to choose someone who elicits angst and howls from The Enemies of Society and the Family (you know who you are) undermines the arguments of the loopy set. In a way it's good for us to make as much noise as possible, since the more Obama is seen to have pissed off those pinko commie fags, the more ridiculous the characterization of him as a pinko commie fag becomes. That's the underlying strategy I see in the Warren pick.

Keep in mind too, this cuts both ways. It costs Warren something to endorse a man who, at least some of Warren's supporters believe, could literally lead the country to Hell. Warren could have quietly refused the invitation, or even publicly embarrassed Obama with a refusal. He accepted. So there's a public endorsement of Obama by Warren, something I wouldn't have predicted two months ago.

Obama has said in so many words that he and Warren have disagreements on significant issues. You know I just can't get over the notion of a president who invites disagreement instead of suppressing it. So I see the Warren invitation as an attempt to open a dialogue with the very significant population he represents, rather than the calculated slap in the face that many other Obama supporters seem to find it.

And, parenthetically, marvel at the politician who starts by beating the Clintons at their own game, continues by co-opting them, and now bids fair to win some support for a black liberal among the white evangelicals. Phew!

Let me say at the end that personally I'm put off by Warren too. I am a non-religious gay person and I don't have much use for Warren and his ilk. But I'm also realistic about the appeal of his philosophy vs. mine to the great bulk of the population.

Any society in which the people are more afraid of the government than the government is of the people isn't much of a democracy.

Obama will reduce our fear of the government, but will not come close to eliminating it -- but that's not due to a personal failing of his, that's just due to the fact that the President is there to manage the national security state.

We, for our part, need to make the government -- and, in fact, all established power -- much more afraid of us. Nothing will unite Democrats and Republicans in DC faster than an angry mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches.

I think that Obama’s Warren invite threw gays under the bus even more so than Clinton did to blacks when he dissed Sister Souljah and Lani Guinier.

Obama should get a quid pro quo from Warren, who could reserve his right to object to gay marriage in his church, but not to the extent that marriage is a governmental function.

In any case, I agree that BHO is in a lonely position, and it’s up to progressives to make political space for him to move into.

The issue of gay rights may be foremost for many Americans, but for Obama, it's only part of the whole. It's not his job to be our activist-in-chief. That's why you're absolutely correct to say we have to expand the consensus. In fact, I think I recall a certain candidate on the stump imploring us to remember that our obligation to effect change from the bottom up wouldn't end on election day.

Warren supports civil unions; thus, he is moderate on the issue and in the same camp as the 66 percent of Americans who do not support gay marriage.

Andrea asked it up above but she isn't the first and she won't be the last and she asked.

Picking Warren appeals, primarily, to the evangelicals. In this past election, Obama got 24% of evangelicals (up 3% from Kerry according to Fivethirtyeight.com). He received 70% of the LGBT vote, which is actually down 7 points from Kerry. Which of those numbers is going to move up or down as a result of picking Warren?

The plain and simple truth is that Obama has a much better chance of picking up evangelical votes with this pick than he does losing LGBT votes. If you want to look at this through a purely political lens its actually brilliant no two ways about it. Andrea you yourself pointed out that he is already getting 70% of the LGBT vote. How much higher a percentage could he possibly get there? But on evangelicals he has a whole lot of room to grow. The truth is whether we like it or not LGBT folk won't be voting Republican any time soon. Now maybe they stay at home but I am not buying it. Most of them aren't single issue voters and if Obama gets the economy back on track, gets us out of Iraq, and repeals DADT I can't see them risking letting Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee both of which are TRUE gay haters come to power in 2012.

But with evangelicals you have to remember that there was a substantial bunch in the group that believed and perhaps still do believe that Obama is a muslim marxist socialist who kills babies and eats them for breakfast. We laugh but I have had to have heated arguments with a white evangelical friend of mine who was so caught up on the faux born alive scandal that they literally acted as if Obama was in a hospital some where with a hammer. And yet he still got almost 30 percent of that vote. And giving Rick Warren a platform at the inauguration is another thing that is going to make their head swirl about Obama. They are already amazed that he didn't name Dennis Kucinich as his Secretary of Defense. They are already amazed that Rev Wright isn't his Secretary of State. So now that he actually reached out to an evangelical who he clearly doesn't agree with on many issues he is going to at least make them question all of the beliefs they had about him pre election. And if he comes through on most if not all of his campaign pledges then many of those evangelicals are going to vote their best interests in 2012 rather than voting their fears.

Evangelicals are not some hive mind that are totally inflexible. Like I said in a different thread, the fact that many of them are now coming out and saying that voting for a candidate that is pro choice is not a mortal sin shows that there is room for compromise IMHO. And whether people understand or get it or not, Rick Warren's followers are not just evangelicals. There are plenty of people who would never classify themselves as evangelical and might not even go to church who think his "Purpose Driven Life" books are the best books they have ever read. Hell I have a two different copies of the book here at my house that were both gifted to me for Christmas two years ago. Do you think that made me vote for McCain?

The real question in a political lens is this, do you try to reach out to a group of over 20 million who has bought books from this man or do you try to reach out to a group that you already have over 70 percent support from and whom your opposition consistently and repeatedly villifies? I think the answer to that question is a no brainer.

Now I don't think that Obama came at this solely from a political perspective but I don't think anybody can make a good argument that the move will be a net negative for him politically.

Now it could be that LGBT rights are more important than anything else to some Americans, but clearly, LGBT were not the most important thing for Obama.

What I'm trying to say is that in politics, you inevitably have to triage, and clearly Obama is putting other priorities ABOVE LGBT.

I would think that if he'd strongly promised to put LGBT rights above all else, one should be pissed, but he did nothing of the sort.

In any case, I strongly believe that LGBT rights will be vastly advanced during the Obama presidency, provided the LGBT pressure groups don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (protesting before Mormon temples in California seems like an extremely bad idea to me; black listing or censuring everyone who disagrees with the LGBT as a bigot is not a good way to go over the 50% line).

Your point would be valid if Obama was trying to get elected next year, he's not. He's going to be trying to push through legislation and that means votes from the representatives of the nearly 80% of evangelicals who didn't vote for him and they make up nearly a quarter of the electorate. Its not hard to see this pick as a attempt to diffuse some right leaning opposition to his agenda based on nothing but hate and paranoia engendered by the Rep. campaign this fall.

Frankly, I agree this pick "hurts" me as a queer progressive. But I can't get worked up about this christian preacher. Most of them are by some standard anti-gay and we live in an overly religious polity. Really I wish there weren't two christian religious figures speaking, but no one cares about that. So, more power to my brothers and sisters getting upset, but I don't think it is hard to see how Obama may see this move as politically expedient.

Once again he's shown that he's cold as ice politically. Those against this pick may have loss this one. So, Lets just get to work organizing to push him in the next direction we want.

I just think that we should be careful with accuracy---

The President-elect is working out how to do the same thing on a very different stage, and I continue to believe that the Warren choice was (a) exactly right and (b) integral to the most dramatic policy changes Obama intends to deliver.

In fact, I was just recently reading about how he held off issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until the Union had a decisive victory so there wouldn't be such a huge backlash against it. Reading it now, I can appreciate how astute that move was, but it also stings to know that the freedom of my ancestors was based on the political temperature at the time. But those were the realities he faced then--and he was accused of cowardice by abolitionists and fellow Republicans.

All that to say, I can see some of the parallels now. And although I'm sure the GLBT community doesn't want to be the victim of political expediency, its hard to see how that is exactly what is going to happen.

This is a distinction without a difference. A country club that did not allow blacks to become members but still employs some as towel boys would be banning them from becoming members. You can split semantic hairs all you want, you're still wrong. There's nothing functionally different from "you gay boys can't be full members of the community but we'll let you sit in the back and pretend" and banning them.

You make some good points. I still wonder, however, about the math. Like I said, Obama was minus 7pts of Kerry with LGBT voters; if they stay home next election cycle, then he could be down another 3-4 pts. If he's successful in getting some more evangelicals, and gains 3-4 pts, which I think you'd agree would be a big accomplishment, then it's a wash and he hasn't accomplished anything.

Chaz:

So now this about pushing policy through the legislature? Do you really think the Warren pick is that politically strategic?

Are you really suggesting that Barack Obama is going to lose 3 to 4 percent of the LGBT vote four years from now because of what he did at the inauguration? Because I AM SAYING Obama will, if he gets his platform through, pick up more than 3 percent of evangelicals in 2012. And I forgot to point out that after 2000 when some well meaning fools voted for Nader and gave us the village idiot for the last 8 years I don't think staying home or voting 3rd party is an option for most liberal/progressive/LGBT voters.

It seems just as possible as him picking up 3-4pts of evangelicals. I'm not even convinced that's what the Warren pick is all about. And at this point, I don't even care (I'm so over this whole topic).

On top of what sgwhiteinfla mentioned, even if Obama were to lose 3-4 pts of the LGBT vote, 3-4 pts of the LGBT vote and 3-4 pts of the evangelical vote are not equivalent. Exit polling showed about 4% of the voting population for this election cycle were LGBT, while 26% were evangelicals. Clearly the evangelical vote carries a lot more weight.

I'm here to tell you some things have changed in our community over the last six weeks. People staying home over this--if it contributes to a sense that Obama is willing to sacrifice gay rights to political expediency--is not only possible, but will happend. And it will be more than just 3-4 %. Things just changed in the gay community. You may not see it--but that is the reason we're all talking about this, isnt't it?

It was not possible to abolish slavery without saving the Union. I am truly amazed that anybody is so clueless that they can't see that.

Hell, Frederick Douglass himself said so: "Had [Lincoln] put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably... rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. "

Are you guys hallucinating that the success of the Confederacy would have ended slavery?

The weirdly strong tendency on the Left -- and it is stronger among us than it is on the Right, though it is there as well -- is to follow the Garrison's of the world, who responded to the slave states' trying to leave the Union in order to preserve slavery: "wayward sisters, go in peace."

Some "abolitionism".

It was NOT worth fighting to preserve the Union, for the purest Abolitionists. People like Garrison, not unlike Wright, condemned the Constitution because it wasn't up to their standards. They would have been happy to see it destroyed.

And they were WRONG.

The simple political calculus, noted by several folks, is that gay Americans have pretty much peaked in their political support for Obama, and the marginal increase in votes from some counterproductive effort to please as many more as possible isn't worth it: diminishing returns.

But Obama could easily double his support among evangelicals, who represent MANY more votes than those who might be so offended (cuz of who says a prayer at the Inauguration? Puh-leeze, y'all are a parody of the politically correct) at Warren that they'd vote for somebody else in 2012.

The thing is, this modern myopia is rooted in the same blurred perspective on history TNC demonstrates, figuring that Lincoln's view was "blacks be damned": Lincoln figured out, long before anybody else did, that his insistence on the strict rule of law, his Constitutional role which did not allow him to abolish slavery outside of rebel areas, and which even required him to carry out the god-awful Fugitive Slave Act, was the way to keep the border states out of open rebellion ("I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky"), to get the South to fire first, to preserve the Union AND finally to kill slavery once and for all.

Name any other abolitionist who understood that.

It's as if, being people of words and observation rather than action and achievement, y'all imagine that the people who TALKED all the time counted for more than the folks who actually did all those things. It wasn't Garrison, nor even Frederick Douglass, who killed slavery: that was Abraham Lincoln. (Douglass eventually figured it out -- why haven't you, TNC?)

I'm telling ya -- watch how having Warren say the invocation makes it possible for Obama to revoke don't ask, don't tell.

But of course, you guys will all claim that it was how you bitched about it.

The last six weeks? This has come up over the last six days. And you will not convince me that if Barack Obama repeals DADT and increases protections for the LGBT community under hate crimes legislation that they will stay at home in 4 years to let which ever nameless republican come in and throw them under the bus. Honestly if they base their whole decision on whether to vote for Obama on his choice for who gives the invocation at his inauguration then I personally say good riddance. But I don't think its gonna happpen that way.

The last six weeks. Proposition 8 (and in your state, Proposition 2) changed a lot of things, and one is the gay community's patience. There is a direct link between Warren and these propositions.

I agree, if Obama brings home the bacon, then gays will vote for him in 2012. But that's a big if: Clinton made a lot of promises, but did not deliver on them. And the conventional wisdom right now is that this is a "Sister Soljah" moment. You may not think that it is not one yourself, but a lot of gays are hearing that, and feeling alienated.

You may not like what I'm telling you, but I'm telling you what it's like on the ground where I am. Yes, if there is not a lot of progress (and it's going to have to be more than just a repeal of DADT), people will start to walk away. And they will point to this moment as when they began not to trust Obama.

Rick Warren is a well-known figure, but he's not the President. Can we just wait and see what happens during the actual Obama administration, please?

Now, as for all this speculation about the political brilliance of this move. Do I think Obama is brilliant? Yes. But sometimes brilliant people can still make boneheaded decisions, as Obama puts it. Seems like a lot of people are trying to do extensive creative dreaming about the 'master-plan' behind all this. Winning over evangelical votes for 2012? Please. Bottom line, if the economy tanks for 4 years, he's done. If it improves, he's in. In the meantime, you'll see how much evangelical support Obama has gained once a Supreme Court nominee decision comes up. The only reason why evangelicals considered voting out of the normal rubric (someone mentioned pro-choice) this specific time was probably extreme economic duress under Bush. But if Obama doesn't fix it, they won't be so inclined to keep him around. They might give him the boot if he does fix it, and then go back to their default set of priorities.

BELIEFNET: One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. ... Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?
WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there. ]

Perhaps he should be asked, are we human?

Given his record, it is actually quite likely Obama will "spend political capital championing gay rights." I'm in Illinois and as I said I've been watching him closely for a long time now. The guy has a very strong record of voting for gay rights, and he has repeatedly gone to black churches on occasions where there was no particular reason to bring up gay rights, but did so anyway, to say that the homophobia has got to go. Obama has repeatedly risked losing capital, *unprompted*. I think he does so because he really believes this unity stuff, because he feels civil rights are important for everyone, and because he believes in reaching out across divides.

But how can he reach out to bigots? It's hard to reconcile, isn't it? I don't blame a lot of folks for deciding, well, maybe he votes the right way, and maybe he says some things of the right things to some audiences, but if he can even stand to have Warren on the same stage as him, let alone at the Inauguration, he's not *really* on our side. I tell you what, though. I think that Obama will be on the side of gay rights *when gay rights are on the table*. And I think he will actively work to put gay rights on the table, although it is not his only priority. At the same time, I believe that when gay rights are *not* on the table, yes, he will willingly ally himself with even people who promulgate the most offensive homophobic views imaginable, to try to address whatever non-gay-rights issue IS on the table at the moment. Some of his best legislative successes have come by working with incredibly conservative Republicans *on issues on which they're aligned* (e.g., gov't accountability, nuclear arms).

The best way I can think of to understand how Obama can cheerfully partner with people who have abhorrent views, is to think about what he said about his grandmother in the Philadelphia speech. He grew up with a grandma that clearly loved him and sacrificed for him, but who also said things that could only deeply hurt and offend anyone who identified, even partially, as a black American. How to deal with that? Shunning her wasn't really a reasonable option.

So I think he learned very early on to take the good in people, and base his relationships on what was good, while accepting the fact of serious ugliness. My guess is this is also how he could stay in Wright's church, knowing that Wright had his own, very limited, very ugly views, or serve on a board with Ayers. I think he sees Warren's efforts to call Americans to the service of higher purposes in life, Warrens' efforts in AIDS and other causes, as good. Lincoln was besieged by legitimate complaints about various of his appointments, and yet he often held firm, saying that if the detractors could find someone with So-and-so's strengths and not his weakness, he'd be happy to appoint him.

One last point I'd like to make (in a post that's so long no one will read it anyway): I think it's important to keep in mind that the symbolism of this invitation to gay rights advocates may actually be very different from what it means to most people. Just because apparently no one on teh Left has ever heard of Warren except with respect to his views on homosexuality, doesn't mean that's what Warren symbolizes to the rest of the nation.

For most people, Warren is more famous than Obama, and, upsetting as it may be, Warren is a widely recognized religious and moral leader. So to most people, Warren doesn't *stand for* "anti-gay" -- not the way that David Duke very much does *stand for* anti-black. Thus having him at the inauguration does not signify, for most people, that Obama chose to elevate an anti-gay point of view. The Inauguration is not a referendum on gay rights, Warren is not there to represent an anti-gay view, and I submit most people will take it that way.

Are the good citizens of Ohio going to think, Warren's speaking, so Obama is telling us that being anti-gay is okay, so we should feel okay about sharing those views? I just don't think that's the lens they'll see it through. I think "Ohioans" (apologies for the broad brush, here, Buckeyes) are going to think, hey, *Warren* is speaking for Obama -- maybe I should give this Hussein guy a chance. And maybe, hopefully, the good citizens of Ohio will be just a little less automatically opposed to whatever Obama's administration does -- including what it does about gay rights.

TR: In some cases, but not all. Even when radicals become normative it's not correct that all their ideas do.

The "Declaration of Principles of the Social Democratic Party", which evolved into Eugene V. Debs's socialist party, included

3: The public ownership of all railroads, telegraph, telephone, all means of transportation, communication, water works, gas, and electric plants, and all other public utilities.

4: The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, coal, iron, and all other mines; also of all oil and gas wells.

12: Abolition of war

It also included several things about women and labor rights which did become normal. Still "yesterday's radicals" become normative, in part, because we just drop their most radical ideas and forget their association with them. Even many, many moderates anyway, who praise Martin Luther King Jr. do not necessarily consider his ideas on poverty and economics to be mainstream.

Your inflammatory accusations arent doing anybody any favors.

And that will do exactly what again? Obama won huge number of people across the board, and could have lost a greater percentage of Gay voters and still one.

Not that I want Obama to lose the gay vote at all, but I do think we in the gay community are vastly overestimating the impact we have in elections. Especially outside of major areas like CA, NY and a few other states/cities wheres gay numbers are large enough, and communities are organized enough to make a difference.

“Senate Republicans refuse to allow the bill to come to a vote in their chamber because it specifically includes sexual orientation as a protected category. The other categories include race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability and age. The bill has been the target of intense lobbying by gay-rights groups and the Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus.”
(NYT 6/8/89, http://tiny.cc/3dc0q)

The men responsible for this month’s nightmare assault on a Bay-area lesbian undoubtedly believe that they were on a mission from God. http://tiny.cc/a52ot

TR: And go where? You think the Republicans will become the more pro-gay party? Why?