What a great perspective. We in the LGBTQ community cry for this and then we, including myself, want to deny others their voice. i love when you said, "Inclusive, to me, as illustrated by The American President, does not involve silencing our opponents or those who see the world from a different point of view. The sole measure of inclusiveness is allowing all viewpoints to be heard and then allowing the populace to choose to form their own opinions. We do not have to be louder or have greater access or be granted more opportunities to be heard, we have to be better." BRILLIANT!

i do not wish to silence anyone, even hurtful people. i think the reaction was strong because we had just lost the Prop 8 battle along with others and we were RAW, VERY RAW. So, Warren's pick just felt like a slap in the face when we were already down.

Thanks for opening my mind up and reminding me what all huma beings serach for - a place at the table.

Warm Regards,

EP

Guess I shouldn't be surprised really, Obama was quite upfront during the elections about being a christianist and expanding faith based initiatives, just pandering to both sides of the same aisle while Bush just pandered to one.

Wake me up when the population is enlightened enough to accommodate a secular humanist as a major part of the inauguration. Until then it's just religionists fighting over the pie.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! This is the point Michael and I have been making, but seeing it on The American President was very heartfelt. People on this blog want to silence the opposition, exactly what the Religious Right wants to do to us. Who are the ones upholding the basic premise of the Constitution and who are not. I guess it takes us veterans to understand it best. Many no-veterans who see the reality also understands the Constitution. I'm glad I did advocate silencing another American, no matter how much he hates me.

This reminds me of an important saying that many may not believe in. "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Silencing someone is not right. Period.

You say:

"We have to be more convincing in our arguments than our opponents are. Let's stand Gene Robinson and Rick Warren on stage together and allow them to both present who they are and what they think to the world. Let's see how we fare in a dialogue like that. Let us allow the LGBT band to march in the parade at the same time the Knights of Columbus are and we can see how we fare in that match-up as well."

Unfortunately, those two men will not be on the stage together - nor will they be at the same event or even appear on the same day. One is part of the day of inauguration, the other appears the day before.

Making room for the dissemination of lies and slander as some form of inclusion is not a legitimate argument. Does Robinson spew distorted facts about Christians or religious fascists like Warren or his followers?

If he did, then there would be a comparison to discuss.

Giving Robinson a place during the national circle jerk is commendable.

It is not quid pro quo.

While I do think the Gene Robinson invitation is a good sign, I disagree that the anger over Rick Warren's invitation is a free speech issue. He asked a person who is publicly known for being virulently anti-gay to speak for him and for the nation. When you give someone a task that important and symbolic, you're sending a message, and a big part of that message comes from how this person conducts their life and what they stand for in the public eye. In the same way, if Obama himself said anti-gay statements people would be angry, and rightfully so, and that would have nothing to do with wanting to take away his right to say them.