Talk Elections

Barack Obama’s choice of a prominent evangelical minister to perform the invocation at his inauguration is a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November, but it is drawing fierce challenges from a gay rights movement that – in the wake of a gay marriage ban in California – is looking for a fight.

Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California, opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals’ staunch support for economic conservatism. But it’s his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday.

“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote Obama Wednesday. “[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”

The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle. Last summer gay groups complained, but were rebuffed by Obama, when an “ex-gay” singer led Obama’s rallies in South Carolina. And many were shocked last month when voters approved the California ban.

“There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere,” Solomonese told Politico.

The selection of Warren to preside at the inauguration is not a surprise move, but it is a mirror image of President Bill Clinton’s early struggles with issues of gay rights. Obama has worked, and at times succeeded, to bridge the gap between Democrats and evangelical Christians, who form a solid section of the Republican base.

Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposed the California constitutional amendment Warren backed. In selecting Warren, he is choosing to reach out to conservatives on a hot-button social issue, at the cost of antagonizing gay voters who overwhelmingly supported him.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html

Would the gays rather we have no inaugural invocation? Any religious leader will most likely oppose gay marriage, as it is against most religions. Warren is a good man. I don't know who better Obama could've chosen.

should have gone with reverend wright imho

obama has bad taste in pastors..

He voted for McKinney.

It pisses me off, but what is there to do about it? Obama has shown no willingness to make a serious stand on anything so far.

I don't see why Obama should refuse any religious leader, especially with someone he has a great personal relationship with, to be associated with him just because that guy is an outspoken critic of gay marriage.

As said in this thread, how many prominent religious leaders are in favor of gay marriage?

And need I remind people that Obama himself opposes gay marriage?  Obama opposed prop 8, but still.

Warren seems like a genuine guy who has a constituency (suburban religious types) that Obama is desperate to reach out to in the wake of his reelection.  As someone who spent some number of hours on the No On 8 campaign I am completely unbothered by this decision.  Why shouldn't Obama have his friend do this?

()?

The HRC is just looking for headlines - they're not a serious advocacy group these days. I see nothing wrong with inviting Rick Warren to make the invocation.

Politics is a disgusting game.

That would have been entertaining at least.

How does any of this make any difference in the long run? This is why bullsh**t advocacy groups hinder rather than advance.

It sets the tone for his presidency. If he's going to spend more time kowtowing to suburban evangelicals who will never support him regardless of what he does instead of constituencies that actually supported him, I for one will be very disillusioned. What's next? No ENDA? No repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?

This really is a BS move by Obama. There is no excuse here - none. This is called 'reaching across the aisle to your detriment'.

First of all, that's not true. There are plenty of liberal religious leaders who support gay marriage, including in major denominations such as Reform Judaism, the Episcopal Church, and the UCC. They may be a minority, but they are not heretics (although the Episcopal Church has some internal splits on it.) Even many religious leaders who do not perform gay marriages in their churches believe the state should recognize civil marriages between same-sex couples. 

The reason the pick of Warren is particularly irksome at the moment is because Warren was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, which in itself is not surprising, but he defended it this week by saying that Prop 8 was a "free speech" measure that, if it failed, would have criminalized pastors for saying that homosexuality wasn't God's favorite thing in the world.

That's either willfully ignorant or outrageously manipulative, and it's very offensive. If he said "I disagree with gay marriage because blah de blah," gays still would have been upset, but it would have been the normal kind of opposition we just have to get over because that's what you'd expect him to say.

This is like Donnie McClurkin. A symbolic gesture that needlessly insults Obama's gay supporters, but which doesn't carry any significance in the long run. We know Obama isn't going to be a fighter for gay rights. We hope he'll make some changes, though, based on the general tenor of his administration and his allies.

My hope is that this creates a small backlash that he responds to not by replacing Warren (inconceivable) but by appointing that lesbian as Secretary of Labor as many labor activists want. That would be some nice progress. For anyone who says it's tokenism, I say it matters a lot to have an openly gay person appointed to a high position because it has been considered a total block to career advancement in elected office until now and even now, and it would break a glass ceiling.

So that's my two cents. The Rick Warren choice is callous, and it's something I'll get over quickly.

If he doesn't repeal DADT by 2011, he's in trouble with gay activists. There's a line in the sand there. How could he not make a policy move that has supermajority support among Americans? There's risk-averse, and then there's scared sh**tless...

I'm firmly for gay marriage but any mainstream religious person he could have picked would have had Rick Warren's views if not worse so I consider this a non-issue.

This shouldn't even be news. Everyone is always crying about something.

This is Obama being Obama. Saddleback, faith- based initiatives, the vignettes in his book about talking to pro- life religious conservatives... I've always had the sense that he's very serious about the whole reaching out to evangelicals thing. He has invited Focus on the Family along with MoveOn.org to a pre-inauguration forum. It's not just "kowtowing to suburban evangelicals" either, many of the African- Americans who put Obama over the top in his elections are evangelical and it makes sense for them and white evangelicals to make common cause where possible. On the other hand, Obama feels that gays didn't put him over the top, and they are less numerous, so maybe he thinks they're less important. But we'll see.

Yes.

what is wrong with this?  I think it's a great idea.

Obama's own church, the United Church of Christ, supports gay marriage.

I am gay, and it pisses me off that they are making a big deal over this. I mean who give a flying fcuk? Rick Warren don't support gay marriage ok whatever. But he is a good Godly man and I don't think Obama could have picked a better person. If the GLBT leaders are pushing for us to be treated like everyone else then they need to stop trying to sat themself apart from everyone else.

There are more religious leaders that oppose rape than gay marriage.

Besides, isn't the entirety of Obama's argument for Rev. Wright that you're not responsible for everything your priest says?

I think Rick Warren is a great pick.  I was very impressed by him during the Forum, and I like a lot of his causes.

He picked the wrong Rick.  ;)

Politico seems to have a real hard-on against Obama as of late. This is their, what, third article accusing him of some insidious move against some group?

That's a really odd metaphor :P

It was pretty much intended. :D

If it was it wouldn't make much sense as neither Wright or Warren is a priest.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technicality

This is a non-issue to me.

As an Evangelical Obama Supporter in the 2008 Election, I am delighted by this pick.  The pick of Rick Warren himself doesn't have much long-term impact, but it goes along with his theme of largely centrist or center-right Cabinet appointments.  Name me one far, far left person in his Cabinet?  If there are any, they're not in the most important offices.  He even has at least three Republicans in his Cabinet with Bob Gates, Jim Jones, and the guy he just named (can't remember name or post).  The most liberal member of his Cabinet thus far is probably Bill Richardson and I consider him to be more a center-left politician rather than a far-left politician.  New Mexico has just as many Republicans as it does Democrats which is why its been close one way or the other the past three cycles.

Did people honestly expect him to be a social liberal, when the first half of his campaign consisted of not even running on issues and the second half of the campaign consisted entirely of casting himself as this combination of FDR, JFK and the magical easter bunny, with not a hyde or hair talk of any divisive cultural issue. He didn't win the election by catering to social liberals and he won't win a second term doing it either, and this guy seems to me like the kind of guy who wants a 49 state landslide in 2012. (I won't say 50 because Utah is just out of reach)

Ray LaHood

I guess he could be liberal, i just don't know much about him.  The most liberal members of the Cabinet that I recognize are Tom Daschle and Bill Richardson and even they're not extremely liberal.  To me, they're just progressive,  not really liberal.

Utah was only the 3rd most Republican state in the country this time around :P

this is such a bulls@#t issue, what difference dose it make if obama has rev Warren say a prayer at his inaugural address. for some reason this reminds me of something "I herd Chris rock said that the only thing that pisses him off more then racism is people who are still surprised by racism" unfortunately,  we still live in a homophobic society and obama is a politician he has to reach out too conservative religious figures even ones that are homophobic . he has to let conservative Americans know that even if he doesn't always agree will at least listen too them.  president obama for the most part except when it comes to the issue of gay marriage is a supporter of gay rights much  more of a supporter then Pres Bush. I hope Gays and lesbians realize that. 

Even though I disagree with Rick Warren on many issues, I'm actually glad that Obama invited him to give the invocation at his inauguration, as it symbolizes the hope that we can all find common ground and work together despite our differences. In this way it represents a break with the rancor, bitterness, and polarization of the Clinton-Bush years.

Excellent pick.

Check out Obama's Stadium Speech.  Read it.  He's doing exactly what he said he would do.  I've never seen people more upset at a winning candidate filling his campaign promises, from cabinet positions to this. 

PS.  I'm thrilled about Ron Kirk for Trade Rep.  He's never known a trade deal he didn't like.  :)

I have no problem with Warren doing the invocation. I disagree with him on a hell of a lot, not the least of which is gay marriage, but so long as he doesn't go on a huge anti-gay tirade during the invocation I have no problem.

Well, so far I feel vindicated.

Rick Warren is definitely a horrible person, but other recent picks by Obama are more troubling seeing as they'll be doing more than leading some dumb prayer.

Personally as an Athiest, I oppose any mixture of church and state. I do believe that unfortunately it will be a long time before my religious beliefs are respected by a majority of the population.

However Rick Warren is actually much more progressive than many of the previous speakers selected to offer the inauguration prayer. I fully understand some of the pain members of the LGBT community must be feeling as a result of Warren's unfortunate statements defending traditional marriage by stating that gay marraiges were almost an equivalent of incent and child abuse. Warren definitely mispoke, and unlike almost all leaders of the evangelical community in the past 20 years does have gay friends and acquaintances and does not "damn people to hell" like many of the fundamentalist preachers of old.

Obama is as fully committed to the cause of gay rights as Clinton, and hopefully this is some strategic posturing that will allow segments of the evangelical community to not challenge a repeal of don't ask don't tell, and maybe make civil unions a nationally protected right. I have no opposition to gay marriages whatsoever, but it will take a generation before we are able to consistenly make gains at the polls against anti- gay marriage ballot iniatives.

Not true, Clinton backstabbed gay activists with Don't Ask Don't Tell while Obama appears willing to overturn it as soon as this economic stuff is out of the way (not immediately, but second term?).  I fully expect it to be overturned eventually although not immediately, but the fact that  Obama wants to focus his political capital on not passing anti-gay measures at the moment makes him superior to Clinton

Interesting observation..... I don't believe that was Clinton's intent, but rather he had overreached and underestimated the backlash amongst the top brass, as well as many Christians who voted for him from different regions.

Personally, there is no question that Clinton had gay friends and was deeply sympathetic towards advancing equal rights for gays. Obama could easily repeal "don't ask don't tell" without any significant loss of political capitol (including my dad who is an evangelical Chritain living in OC who voted for Obama and against Prop 8).  Not sure why the cool sunglasses icon comes on, I am an Athiest and in favor of gay marriage so please don't get the wrong idea.   :)

Well, Obama's PR people have indicated they aren't immediately interested in repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and would prefer to repeal it later on in his term.  His campaign position was that he'd repeal the very law that Bill Clinton supported...

of course his campaign never provided a timeframe.

I hope he does it within the first year..... This may be a unique opportunity while the nation is still in two major wars to throw this issue of patriotism in front of the American public and dare the religious right to challenge it. How can one challenge the rights of LGBT Americans to fight in service of the country openly and without shame?

I have to say, his moderate myth certainly has gone far if it's gotten "Progressive" Atheists to buy into it. As the head of Americans United for Seperation of Church & State said "Warren is Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt."

The only thing he is more moderate over is treatment for AIDs and a variety of other diseases and supports more anti-poverty efforts. Other than that, he's your average evangelist, there's nothing special or moderate about this man from everything that I've seen and read of him and his church. (Did you know he supports programs to "cure" people of homosexuality and his church explicitly and clearly bans gays and lesbians from membership? Oh yeah, that's "more progressive.)

As for the misspeaking BS, he very clearly said it and repeated it was some sort of abnormal behavior in a variety of other interviews. He explained his position on marriage saying "I am opposed to a brother and sister being together and calling that a marriage, I am opposed to multiple people getting together and calling that a marriage, I am opposed to a man and a child getting together and calling that a marriage," in comparison to gay marriage, and when asked to clarify, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" he very clearly and very openly and honestly replied. "Oh I do!"

This guy sickens me, his church sickens me, everyone who thinks he's some sort of progressive evangelist sickens me, and Obama sickens me for not taking a stand on anything.

Too bad McCain isn't being inaugurated, then you could have Hagee doing it!

I have to agree with you. If we can lose social issues then we can kill the Party of Lincoln in the South forever. It's honestly atrocious that people feel so eager to belong to a party whose history they can't even be proud of. Even if I do believe in traditional values, I really can't bring myself to vote for Lincoln's party unless there are unique circumstances, because it is still the party that villified us for 100 years until they suddenly realized that playing the race card could win them some votes. They don't belong down here. Last time they had control of the governments down here we drove them out through guerilla warfare. I'd like to see a more peaceful end this time but I agree that it does need to end.

Well it's a darn good thing he's not making a speech on gay rights, or that he's advising the president in any way!

Am I the only non-conservative who isn't outraged/caring about this?

I'm a flaming liberal and I think the ourage is too big. I'm not saying this guy is a good person and I probably won't watch the prayer, but gay people need to understand that not everything will go their way and instead of freaking out about every little thing, they should actually... do something about it.

When prop 8 passed and all the protests were going on, I thought something good was finally happening. Sure, there was black bashing, Mormon bashing, Republican bashing, and much more, but instead of just sitting down, feeling sorry for themselves and crying alone, the gay community was finally making a stand. Now it's back to feeling sorry for themselves.

Obama is triangulating, just as Clinton did.

I feel the same way my friend.  I wouldn't call myself an atheist as I don't know if god exists or not (and frankly even if s/he existed, I wouldn't worship him/her), but I am often disappointed with the role the church has in how this country is governed. 

How can anyone here actually believe the BS that he's some sort of 'moderate.'

Anyone who ever seriously expected a black politician to be progressive on matters like gay rights is dreaming.

Obama doesn't support gay marriage.

Pretty much. Democrats need to force anti-gay rights blacks out of their party. Us dems would be able to win many more marginal/GOP-lean suburban or southern seats if we weren't seen as the party of the black man.

It's a freaking invocation.  I don't think it's a big deal who he picks.

The Gay/Lesbian Marching Band in the Inaugural Parade > Rick Warren. :P

It's the symbolism. It's someone who represents more of the same old thing that we've seen for years, as opposed to something different that America voted for. It's insulting to gay & lesbians, it's yet another unnecessary and ridiculous "compromise", and it's just plain stupid.

It's not like Rick Warren is protesting gay marriage during the invocation.

Why are gays angry about Rick Warren when OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE?

Because it's not a binary "support/oppose gay marriage" issue. Rick Warren campaigned for Prop 8 and spread misinformation about it, saying it was a free speech issue which would protect his right to say homosexuality wasn't ideal. He also compares homosexuality to incest, divorce, and other unpleasantries that we don't appreciate being lumped in with.

Barack Obama opposes gay marriage, but does so respectfully. Most gays recognize that's where the mainstream is for federal office these days, and he opposed Prop 8 quietly even though his views would have indicated he should have supported it. I suppose he could have opposed Prop 8 more vocally, and many gays believe he should have, but it's clear there were political benefits to his staying above the fray. Rick Warren, meanwhile, dove straight into the fray and used his star power against us.

Sorry, I'm not a puppet of the "Gay Rights Movement". I refuse to feign outrage about this useless issue.

How cute.

White democratic presidential candidates had similar views to Obama on this issue (with the exception of Kucinich).  Nice try turning this into a race issue.

(he is a gay who is pro gay marriage)

Don't mention anything if you think its so useless then. ::)

Do you think anyone really expects you to, though? One lesson we learned from the Prop 8 campaign is that there is no effective or organized gay rights movement now, and it doesn't issue marching orders. Some people are upset, some aren't, some are in between.

What irritated me was someone who is gay putting the words Gay Rights Movement in quotation marks, as if it's a joke, its useless, or something along those lines. It's insulting and just self-contradictory. I have no respect for gay people who have no willingness to fight for what is rightfully ours.

Has this Rick Warren pick make you donate to an equality group, or protest, or do any other form of fighting, or have you just been complaining on this message board?

Do you actually care?

About the prayer? No. I'm not ever religious and I probably wasn't gonna pay attention no matter who was saying it. Of course I disagree with this Warren guy's views, I'm a big gay rights and marriage supporter. But I think gay people are doing it all wrong, it's not changing anyone's minds on the issue. There's actually a hunger strike to protest Rick Warren doing the prayer. Jesus.

Just the other night, in many California cities, there were a lot of calm and peaceful protests. Of course, they probably didn't get much national coverage, but they sent a way stronger message than "I'm not gonna eat because this Warren guy is saying a prayer and he doesn't want me to marry the person I love!"

And fwiw, as gay men we're probably not even gonna changes our minds on this so. :P

Gay people need to stop whining about every perceived wrong.  I mean Jesus H. Christ, shut up already.  Focus on the issues that matter, rather than these insignificant things.

So can we expect an anti-semite or a racist to be speaking at the inauguration? After all, we need to be tolerant of our differences.

And I certainly hope those Jews won't complain or anything. They just need to shut the hell up and respect differing opinion.

Rick Warrren just opposes changing the state constitution, and believes that marriage should be with a man and woman.  You cannot compare that to racism and anti-semitism.

There's a difference between opposing such things respectfully, and proudly proclaiming in public you believe gay marriage is equal to incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

People are overreacting.  Warren is going to give a short prayer; he isn't going to denounce gays, he is merely going to ask the Lord for protection, help, etc.  Focus on real issues, not little stuff like this.

First off, to clarify, I'm Bisexual, not gay. I am, of course, very supportive of gay marriage and the right to have it.

The reason I put the 'Gay Rights Movement' in quotes is because how bad it is at advocating actual gay rights. I mean, rather then putting political capital and resources into affecting actual policy and lobbying for change favorable to the LGBT community, some of its leaders have decided to waste efforts on this totally useless and non-beneficial issue (which is why I mentioned it, HAARP. I am a supporter of gay rights and I'm sickened to see it go down this path.)

Also, I am somewhat taken aback by the ignorance of this statement:


Oh, I'm willing to fight. However, I won't fight a fight without any substantive benefit at the end of it. This Rick Warren debacle is a lose-lose.

I tend to agree with the previous poster.  We have to pick our battles.  Proposition 8 is a travesty, and we need to fight to have it reversed.  Fighting about Warren doing the inaugaural does little (nothing) to accomplish that end.

I’m not sure how I feel about this, personally. I read Warren’s book a few years back. I don’t really remember much about it, don’t think I finished it. But from what I remember, it was a decent book, talking more about your personal relationship with God then going on rants about issues you’d expect Social Conservatives to favor. So given that and the forum Warren organized, I was a bit surprised to find out he’s actually such an active opponent of Gay Marriage. I thought he tried to avoid the divisive issues.

I can certainly understand the outrage, and I think gays have the right to be annoyed by this. But I think one reason Obama likes Warren’s is because Warren and Obama have the same image in the eyes of many. They both seem pragmatic and willing to compromise with their opposition. Say what you want about the guy, but rightly or wrongly, Warren’s not viewed as a Robertson or Dobson, just as Obama’s not viewed as a typical stereotypical Liberal. Also, looking at the whole thing pragmatically,I’d say gays are not really viewed too favorable right now by average citizen. Echoing smarter minds then I, If that ban on gay marriage is overturned in California (which it hopefully is) you can all imagine the ammo that’s going to give the Social Conservatives. Frankly, I think there’s a chance we’ll come across too whiney and demanding with all these protests. Like it or not, most people personally oppose Gay Marriage. Now on the legal level, I think we should fight for our rights, absolutely. But to demand the exclusion of a pastor whose done alot of good, is widely respected by both sides of the political spectrum, and who happens to share the view of the majority of Americans on gay rights is not going to make us look good. Maybe that’s not important, but there are better uses of time and energy then getting too bothered over this. At least, in my view, Though I certainly can see where those on the opposite side are coming from.   

If one believes that same gender sex is immoral, then it would be hypocritical for one who holds that position to not equate it to other sexual activities they view as immoral.

As for myself, while I don't acknowledge the equation to incest and pedophilia because they are activities that it is essentially impossible to argue involve all parties involved engaging in informed consent to.  However, equating gay marriage to polygamy is perfectly reasonable, so long as the individuals involved all consent to the arrangement.  I ask you, since you seem to favor treating the two differently, on what basis do you find gay marriage acceptable and polygamy as unacceptable?

I actually don't find polygamy unacceptable. But one wouldn't lead to the other. And comparing the two is ridiculous because one is the oppression of one group of people simply for being a group of people, the other is regarding the structure of marriage itself as opposed to oppressing a group of people.

Another good point.

And maybe it's just me and my lack of love for symbolism, but I really don't get the fuss over this.  He could've picked Louis Farrakahn and I wouldn't dislike him for it (I'd probably criticize the fact that he picked him for the invocation after rejecting his endorsement, but I wouldn't criticize him because Farrakahn is an anti-semite / racist).

I'm going to say this once, then give up: This whole "Obama doesn't support gay marriage!!!" thing is a red herring. What most of us object to is the fact that Warren has compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

Let's look at a different angle here. This isn't about Prop 8 right now--it's about making sure Obama doesn't take us for granted, as he appeared to do by picking Warren for his invocation. If the effect of this is to jump-start Obama's commitment to gay initiatives other than marriage, it will have been successful.

Prop 8 is why people are mad at Warren, but it's not why people are mad about Warren's being chosen. That's all about Obama.

Ben, you've expressed much greater anger recently about whether northerners respect the south or not, which is no less symbolic an issue.

you know you're in the last days when an inaugural invocation by someone who teaches traditional biblical values becomes "controversial"

'Traditional biblical values' are controversial because they are hatred, jmfcst.

I think if we started stoning disobedient children out in the streets that would be a tad controversial.

People who are in favor of polygamy aren't a group of people?

That makes no sense literally, so I'm presuming that you mean that polygamists are not the same type of grouping that gay people are. How are they a different type of group, and on what logical basis should they be treated differently so that state recognition of gay marriage does not lead to state recognition of polygamy or vice versa?

let's see, according to your logic:  "we should stop preaching against murder, theft, bestiality, and incest...since those values also are found in the bible."

sorry, but you're just plain stupid (as well as ignorant of the differences between the old and new covenants)

Once again, President-elect Obama proves his passion for true national unity and moving past the mind-numbingly stupid culture wars and the false "issues" they revolve around that has gripped our nation the last forty years.  Your fellow Americans, whether pastors in Orange County or gays in West Hollywood, aren't the enemy.  Rick Warren is a respected, patriotic American citizen with a best-selling book and millions of adherents.  He isn't Osama bin Laden. We're all in this together, and we have more important things to worry about than our petty differences.

If our country wants to progress into the new era intact, much less retaining our importance, we must leave the old differences between races, creeds, and genders at the doorpost and walk hand in hand.  President-Elect Obama and Pastor Warren are making a great first step at proving, like Obama always says, that there isn't a Red America and a Blue America, but a United States of America.  That we have gay friends in the Red States and worship an Awesome God in the Blue States. 

Sounds like someone is auditioning for press secretary.

:)

Honestly, what I'm saying is that anyone surprised or disappointed by this has not listened to President-Elect's Obama for the last four years.  Punishing political opponents and not giving people who disagree a seat at the table was President Bush's MO.

At the end of the day, Rick Warren loves this country and Barack Obama loves this country.  That's all that really matters, in the final analysis.

Anything that makes Barney Frank unhappy makes me happy, so now I'm supporting Rick Warren in full force!

Traditional Biblical Values are responsible for the murder of children when the old testament was written, which at the time was the "new" testament. Now we have today's Traditional Biblical Values that deny gay rights to Americans. That's why choosing Rick Warren for Obama's inauguration is controversial, though hypocritical since Obama opposes gay marriage.

Eh...there's no evidence that the Law of Moses was ever strictly enforced, and plenty that it wasn't.  Both archeological evidence and the latter parts of the Old Testament are pretty clear that the Israelites' reputation for being "stiff-necked" and not following the Law is pretty well-founded.

EDIT: At least in pre-Exile, First Temple times.

After that, the Talmud is pretty clear that the Sanhedrin were not big on actually giving out death sentences for crimes that Moses wanted to give death sentences for.

After Hellenistic influences set in, the upper crust of the Jewish elite were eating non-Kosher meat, hanging out in the gymnasium, and discussing non-Jewish philosophy, and were rarely, if ever, punished.  After all, it's not like the Hasmonean (and later Herodian) authorities, who were doing the same, cared.

You're guilty of the same attitude, frankly, in your reply. Listen, the laws of the Bible should only be put into real world law if they can stand on their own merits apart from simple 'being in the Bible'. This is because the absolute nature of much of the written Word is completely incompatible in real world application as well as the simple fact that those who do not regard the Bible will not respect it as the law of the land if that is its only basis.

I'm saying there were parents the stoned their children because those were the biblical values at the time. Now we have new biblical values that deny gays they're right to marry because the bible is against it. The bible is also against divorce but christians  and christians divorce all the time and are allowed to do so.

No, you should just stop preaching, jmfcst.

I'm not surprised or disappointed by this because it's a repeat of Donnie McClurkin and it is Obama's M.O. to do things like this. However, the fact that I'm not surprised does not mean that gays don't have a right to express our views on this and make sure he reiterates his moderate support for our causes, which he has expressed on many occasions short of outright supporting marriage equality.

First off, can people stop saying "gays need to stop..." because not all gay people are fighting/mad about this. I am gay, and I can care less if Rick Warren prays for Obama at the inaugural. I mean Obama needs all the prayer he can get. Also I think it is a shame to the "gay rights movement" that some of the leaders are getting upset about this. I just makes it look like they are trying to be an attention whore. They are making a mountain out of a mole hill.