I sent the following to Change.gov:

Are you kidding us with Rick Warren??! My mind is spinning with three possible reasons for the president elect's dreadfully poor choice for the inauguration invocation: 1) an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment, 2) a misguided strategy to look "inclusive" by an administration under intense pressure not to be exclusionary or, 3) wholesale support of a slap-in-the-face religious ideology against gay Americans.

I supported this administration with excitement and resources, and I am politically astute enough to understand that nobody gets everything they want from their president in a country as complex and dynamic as this one. But Mr. Warren and his high-profile mean-spirited, divisive, and superstitious beliefs have breached the walls of public policy, and now he'll stand before the world on January 9th to bless an administration that promises to change this sort of thing. Surely, there was a better choice.

Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, voicing his distaste for an Obama pick, is now widely quoted, saying "Obama's own record and rhetoric make clear that he will seek left-wing judicial activists who will indulge their passions, not justices who will make their rulings with dispassion."

Dispassion? This is hardly a quality one should want in a court whose sole responsibility is justice. Besides, the Constitutional literalist --- an approach championed by the Court's most conservative Justices and their supporters --- is anything but dispassionate. It is, however, in its servitude to the letter of the law, devoid of the realism Obama strives for on the Court. Simply put, it denies that we live in a complex, always-changing democracy.

Yes, our Justices should be scholarly Constitutional lawyers. But they also should understand the implications of rules on human personalities in context. Though Constitutional amendments are serious business, they exist because country and culture are not static. This dynamicism, by definition, renders the U.S. Constitution an interpretable document to some degree.

Read more at NewThinkAmerica.com