I think the great philosopher, Karl Popper, and his Paradox of Tolerance needs hauling out and dusting off again:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

It is not wise to "tolerate" everything...our gut reations over Rick Warren are not wrong!!

If pissing off the queer community by inviting homophobic pastor Rick Warren to perform the inaugural invocation is acceptable, how can Mr. Obama blithely accept Pastor Warren visiting the patron-saint of state sponsored terrorism, Syria and then praising the Bashar Assads and characterizing the country as a “moderate nation.”

It may come as a surprise to President-elect Obama to learn that Syria has worked in concert with Hezbollah and Iran, and provided shelter for every Islamic terrorist group imaginable, Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner, and Jamil Al-Gashey (the only surviving Munich terrorist), etc.

I realize the President-elect is still learning on the job but, is this the type of inclusiveness Mr. Obama was referring to when he defended including Rick Warren in the inaugural festivities? Perhaps, President-elect Obama was unaware that Rick Warren held Syria in such high esteem? On the other hand, maybe the fact that Syria is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel just doesn’t resonate for Mr. Obama?

And the most awful thing about Warren being chosen for such a high-profile event is that it gives him credibility and will probably win him a million new followers.

I was very surprised to learn about Rick Warren's being chosen to speak. Doesn't Obama remember how he was treated in the debate at Saddleback?

In order to respond to Warren's questioning in a way that wouldn't bury him politically with Warren and his church he had to continually answer "Well, no, but this is why we should not be concerned about about that, because the REAL issue is about (fill in the blank)." It took forever, and caused Warren to periodically skip over questions (of his choosing, not Obama's), and at one point backed Obama into a corner where he had to answer from his own personal conviction "Do you personally believe marriage is between one man and one woman, yes or no?" I well recall the expression on Obama's face. (If looks could kill.) Because he knew he'd been out-maneuvered.

All McCain had to do was show up and say "I DO!" to any question Warren put to him. At least he elected to say more than that.

Is it possible that Obama was so intimidated by this previous encounter that he doesn't dare NOT invite Warren? Or could he actually believe that man's garbage?

I recommend reading this perspective on the Warren issue:

http://sidewaysmencken.blogspot.com/2008/12/dickdar.html

This move reminds me of Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. Was the comment a coincidence, or a cunning political move to drop bait? Either way, he was able to use it as leverage against Republicans who pounced on it.

This strikes me as being another shrewd maneuver. He's castrating his opponents by being a gentleman to them, and he's simultaneously stirring up the LGBT community, getting us to stand up and speak out, without actually doing us any harm.

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here folks, but is this entire Warren issue really necessary ??? I'm not saying that I support the man and his views, but if we as the GLBT community are going to open our mouths about such an issue of inclusion and bigotry then should it not be fair for others to expect us to put our money where our mouths are when it comes to INCLUSION in our very own community ??? This has been and continues to be a very bitter pill to swallow among the community "leaders".

Think about it, how many everyday people in the community are invited to serve on non-profit boards, speak at activist lectures, invited to write articles for GLBT publications, invited with open arms in both the political and corporate GLBT scene ??? The answer is simple, not many............... In order to be "included" in the GLBT circle of change you have to grease palms with some corporation, know someone who is willing to bring you onto their political platform, or know the editors of GLBT publications. And of course then it becomes just the same old status quo of the GLBT media/activist/corporate boys and girls only club !!! And those who speak out in protest about it, well they receive the same debasing criticisms from the community that these straight folks receive.

Exclusion, bigotry and debasing ideology is very alive and well in OUR VERY OWN community by our community members towards our community members and I feel that we need to resolve this issue first within our very own community before being quick to jump on the Barney/ Activist bandwagon an denounce others for disagreeing with us. How on earth is the rest of America going to think we have any shred of credibility in our beliefs if we don't practice what we preach ourselves ???

So in closing, I say if we are going to raise a national stink about Warren and his views, then we should also be prepared for some harsh criticism for speaking out against ideology and exclusion that we as a community don't practice ourselves............

Thank you for your time