Maybe I used too many explanation points but I have been reading nothing but hysteria about Warren over the past 2 days.

"Nothing but hysteria"? Seriously?

Sure, there have been hysterical reactions to Warren's role in the Presidential Inauguration. (And there have been some mighty hysterical reactions to the objections.) But there have been some pretty calm and measured reactions as well, I think.

I hope I'm correct in assuming that it's okay to voice an objection ... isn't it? I mean Rick Warren has actively worked against equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples, and now he's been invited to give the Invocation at the Presidential Inauguration for someone that many in the GLBT communities supported (even knowing that his support for them had limits). I hope it's okay to voice some objection.

Who decides what an appropriate reaction to this is? Where's the dividing line?

While progressives should always press Obama on progressive issues, having a meltdown over the guy giving an invocation is nothing but wasted energy.

It seems to me that there at least as many people "having a meltdown" over the reactions of GLBTs and their supporters as there are people "having a meltdown" over Warren being part of the Inauguration.

Funny, that.

I mean, Mr. Schaller described the reaction at Change.gov as "ugly", then quoted a decidedly non-ugly post. I'm not asking for my money back, but Mr. Hernandez was quite polite, especially considering the context.

It's nice that he can show his opponents respect, but it is possible to do that without blatantly disrespecting his allies.

He's not sitting down for brunch and a nice chat with the man. The man's giving the Invocation at his Inauguration.

I doubt very much that you'll get any shit for the suggestion. It's been made before, and most people simply refuse to take it seriously.

The separate drinking fountains and schools and so on are essentially equal, you know. It's just ... it's just better for everyone this way.

Kindly compare your post with the letter quoted by Mr. Schaller.

Honestly now, which one would be more correctly described as "screaming and ranting"?

It's possible that I'm being biased, or that my data sample is too small, but I'm not seeing nearly as much "ugliness" from people objecting to Rick Warren's inclusion in the Inauguration as I'm seeing from people disagreeing with them.

Isn't this the same ...

... kind of behavior exhibited by the extreme right? Pretty soon we can all hunker down with the 5 or 6 other people with whom we agree on every issue.

Yes, absolutely, calling people treasonous for not supporting a "pre-emptive" war based on shaky evidence is the same kind of behavior as objecting to someone speaking at the Presidential Inauguration who doesn't believe in equal treatment under the law.

I don't know why I didn't see that before.

For all the folks who think civil unions are the same thing as legal marriage:

Feel free to demonstrate your belief in this by dropping into your city hall and asking that your marriage be considered a civil union from now on, and let your friends and families know. It is, after all, the same thing ... right?

P.S. I suggest that you might first consult with a lawyer about all the legal differences that would result from changing from one "separate but really really equal" status to the other.

Wow, a Secretary of Labor who's actually pro-labor -- who'd a thunk it?

Remember, Bill Clinton began his administration by picking a fight on behalf of gays (allowing gays to serve in the military) and it didn’t work out too well for him.

It didn't work out too well for him -- and even less well for the thousands of troops who've been harassed (and worse) -- because he capitulated instead of doing the equivalent of what Truman did with regards to blacks in the military.

Having Warren give the invocation falls esentially into the category of words, it's a symbolic thing, it doesn't affect anybody unless you read some kind of meaning into it. I will judge Obama's commitment to LBGT people based on what he accomplishes.

"One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world."

I'm trying to remember who said that ...

From what I can tell, I seem to be better at that than Rick Warren. Can I give the invocation, then?

But then, I think that advocating for second-class citizenship for GLBTs is pretty disagreeable. But maybe Warren and I disagree about that.

(Also, equating strong disagreement with being rude -- as Obama may or may not be doing here -- is often a sneaky tactic to avoid facing the issue, and can be pretty damn condescending.)

Said Fabrizi, "[The Democratic State Central Committee] did the right thing because they are going to need his help."

Good luck with that. What's in it for him?

This is the guy who left the Democratic Party and ran against the Connecticut's voter-chosen Democratic candidate for Senate, who didn't just support but actively campaigned for the other party's candidate for President, who was an active enabler of many of the most egregious policies of the current much-disliked Republican President. It's not a simple little polite disagreement ... he's working for the Republicans, and wants to keep on doing it while he continues to be treated as if he's part of the party now in power.

But oh, oh, oh, let's not be too harsh!

Wankers.