I don't find this letter ugly at all--I think it's very dignified and the writer is totally right to call Obama on what he promised and what he is now delivering and ask for their money back--Obama got the contribution on false premises. Shame on Obama for this.

Americans, consumers to the last. Where's that warranty? I'm sure I can get my donation back if change was just a word they liked to use...

First thing that's made me smile all day.

I suppose I could always ask the bank to do a charge-back.

the democrats just take their money then pander to the "center" which is an excuse to keep organized religion and corporations in power.

Get ready for 4 years of Bush Dark.

Wah, wah, wah! We paid for Obama and now we want him to do our bidding. Isn't this what people complain about lobbyists about- quid pro quo?

Obama isn't homophobic. Obama just isn't pro-homosexual. Everyone is to be included in his view of America unlike Bushes. Most Americans don't want gay marriage. Get over it already. Civil unions and marriage have equal rights in California. Look it up. There is no discrimination. Stop the whining already.

You know, one of those "mysterious and dangerous" $100 donors.

Those folks at Change.gov do not speak for me or any other Democrats I know... and I know a lot of what the talking heads would call lefties. (I call us centrist)

Dear Mr. President Elect,

If you do not think exactly like me, please refund my money.

~surly voter

This is all so silly. This guy, whatever his opinion on a number of subjects, is not going to get any power, any governmental posts, a policymaking advisory position, and more than likely he's not going to sully the moment by making any reprehensible comments.

What do "we" get? We get the right to say: "We really do have the open tent here, we really do allow others to speak their minds despite the fact that we don't agree, we really don't hate Christians, even Evangelical nutbags, and just because we don't agree with someone, doesn't mean we're going to silence them on all other topics."

He holds a narrow-minded position. Big deal. Will allowing him to speak in public (on any subject) legitimize that? If you want muzzle anyone and everyone who holds a different position than your own, well, then don't do it in this party, please.

Greetings

Why is it that Dems are so chicken shit when they win!

Clinton, Reid, Obama...

Cowards to the bone but after winning the election.

Now Obama makes nice to a rightist theocrat who just happens to be a raging raving homophobe

WHY?

Symbology matters and the symbol of the homo hater giving an invocation is nauseating

But sadly not unexpected by the democratic party that has come to mean nothing

yeah I'd like my vote back

... 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.

You already have people on here posting about how gays need to quit whining for marriage, when civil unions are the same thing.

This is exactly what we went through under Clinton. "Well what's the difference between don't ask, don't tell and serving openly as a gay. I mean, you're still gay, right?"

The problem with mitigating justice and civil rights, is you incrementally keep doing it more and more each time. Until, eventually, not only have you made no gains but you've regressed.

I'm not gay. But I don't think these people's point is just to nail Obama for no reason and whine. Their access to equal rights, whether you like it or not, is a civil rights issue. And Obama should stand up and be counted on this one. He should be bigger than the bigots like Warren.

Some of you keep pointing out the power of dialogue. Well that's great, but it's not dialogue that ultimately gets things done, it's action.

Lincoln had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, not debate it. Harry Truman had to sign the act desegregating the army not debate it. Even King had to lead marches.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Obama should not have appointed, chosen, or even have allowed Warren to give the invocation address. To do so is, unquestionably, a step back not only for LGBT rights but for all of us. The least people can do is ask for their donations back. Obama needs to fix this.

The Change.gov poster should get his facts straight before exploding into a rage...a Congressional committee, NOT Obama, gets to pick who gives the invocation at the inauguration. Considering how Warren sandbagged Obama during the campaign with his "forum" stunt, I doubt he would be very high on the Obama wish list.

Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader deserved your support in the primaries and the general. Now THAT'S change you can believe in!

Well you've all learned your lesson. You need to support candidates much farther to the left in the future!

You can say that a congressional committee did, but only from a list provided by Obama, on which was Rick Warren. So Obama DID pick Warren as one of the people he would provide a platform to.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/17/rick_warren/

and not always align our vote with the democratic party. They tend to split their vote which forces both parties to pander for their support. (In our case I would suggest splitting the vote between democrats and the green party or a strong independent).

If we stop automatically voting for Democrats it would force them to actually fight for our equality if they want our support in an election.

As a Californian, this feels huge. The poster above who suggests that civil unions and marriages are equal has his facts wrong, both in terms of practical financial benefits (because civil unions can only cover state and not federal financial issues, so no joint filing with IRS) and symbolic ones (which was the core of the CA Supremes' decision - that the symbolic value incurred by using the term marriage has significant psychological benefits and social cache that civil unions do not). We all know separate but equal is an oxymoron. Frankly, when people claim that it's okay for separate to be treated as equal in this case, I tend suspect that it is a cover for other feelings and ideas that the speaker/poster/etc. doesn't want to talk about.

Those who are surprised by this letter are underestimating how painful the still-open wounds over prop 8 feel for the LGBT community and its allies. I think a lot of us feel like we compromised too much with Obama on this during the election -- Obama stated he opposed the measure, but he never did anything active to defeat it, and prop 8 supporters used his image to sell their lies, with no rectification from his camp. We didn't push him on it, because we didn't want to hurt his chances. There's a lot of regret about that now, and a lot of resolve not to stay silent any more.

To those who think folks are expecting that everyone agree with them %100 - you are either using hyperbole, or else you have no sense of the scale of the issue. You do not see a tremendous outcry over this man being anti-choice, most likely because he isn't seen as an influential voice on the issue. No one cares about his feelings about the UN or his position on the Iraq war. But he just played a part in directly harming thousands of families in my state. It's not that he is a passive believer in policies with which we disagree - its that he is an active purveyor of bigotry toward a minority group in this country and an active player in political efforts to oppress that group, efforts that have just recently been successful in directly attacking families in my state.

Those of you who are shocked or amused are not listening. Instead of deriding these folks for taking a stand, you might want to pause and wonder why this issue is so important to them that they are willing to take a stand. Change will never come if we must always wait for the right time. It's never the "right time" for those who are not suffering for the lack of it. But now is the time for us.