There's a canyon between inviting someone to participate in an honored position during the inauguration and entertaining a dialogue or exchange of ideas. The mistake has been made. It's up to the Obama team to correct or allow the decision to cast the stain on the promise of his presidency and progressive ideals.

Enough is enough. My rights are not negotiable.

Would you advocate equivocation for women's right to vote? For heterosexuals to marry across race? For a woman's right to choose? For any individual's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Of course not! Warren's presence is a stain on Obama's inauguration.

Give me a topic and I can make a Biblical case for multiple sides of the issue. The Religious Right would accrue more credibility if their fervor was as strong on solving issues of lying, cheating, stealing, coveting, and killing. But those are liberal issues – anti war and all that jazz.

It is their hypocrisy on choosing which issues count that strip them of their credibility. There's a book called “Jesus Wants To Save Christians” that Warren and his ilk should read. In addition, let's not forget the heavy-handed judgment in Warren's agenda when the Biblical Case forbades judgment – “Judge not, least ye be judged” and warning that “He who is without sin – cast the first stone.”

Warren and the whole of the Christian Right who seek to shape our political discourse build their Biblical Cases in direct conflict with what Jesus said, did and taught. Therein lies the rub.

Finally, being loud and vocal does not equal being shrill. That's coded language and I'm sure you don't truly mean it as it sounds. The offering of an honored seat to someone with Warren's public and political aims is a slap in the face of the Gay community which supported Obama. Truly following on the many attacks directed at Gay's today there must be a line somewhere. There must be a time to say – Enough!

Anyone who supports equal rights for all people gets this. And frankly, the fact that Obama has placed Warren in this honored position scares the hell out of those of us who have been made promises by Democrats including the Clintons and continually watch as equal rights that should be “inalienable” become political fodder for trade and political theater.

Warren is a divisive voice. It's not okay to give him a bigger platform unless you agree with him. That's scary.

Warren isn't merely getting a seat at the table. He's being offered an honored seat.

In an interview just last week, Warren compared reproductive choice to the Holocaust and compared same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia, and he called Christians who work to advance social justice gospel “Marxism in Christian clothing.” He's also stated that there are five issues that all candidates should be evaluated on — the top three are reproductive choice, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.

These are extreme positions not merely differing positions. Religious extremism whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish doesn't recognize the rights of “all the people”. I'm sure that Warren is charming and charismatic in person which is why he attracts a large audience. Many unsavory actors on the world stage have been charming and charismatic, while also spreading hate and intolerance.

Simply put: this decision by Obama and/or his team is a gaff. If Warren needs a seat at the table, then use him as an adviser for how Christian extremism can be minimized in the USA.

I often agree with you, Karoli on policy and political positions. This time you picked the unfortunate and wrong side.

In support of his third point, he cites incest and pedophilia (though it's not pedophilia as much as it is marriage between older man; younger woman, which is not necessarily pedophilia) as two other instances where marriage has not been redefined to be inclusive.

And then he is asked by the interviewer whether he equates incest and pedophilia with gay marriage, which is where he makes the fatal mistake, which is to say “yes, absolutely”.

While I understood the 'yes, absolutely' to relate to the marriage definition (which he sort of qualifies with his next sentence), it was clearly open to lots of interpretation, and he should definitely clarify what he meant by that.

I can understand how anyone would feel outraged by the comparison. I was taken aback by it too. However, I don't believe he meant it as a statement that gays were the same as pedophiles and those committing incest. I think what he was saying is that they all fall into an area that has not been covered by 'traditional marriage' as defined by the Bible.

With that said, it was an ill-advised and ambiguous response to a pretty clear question. I would love to hear him explain his response.

http://is.gd/cA1v

More after I find the full context.

I absolutely understand what is trying to be achieved here. But you have to draw the line somewhere. It's one thing to have a preacher or minister simply say homosexuality is wrong because of religious beliefs or what the Bible says. It's another to say hateful things like equating homosexuality with incest or pedophilia. How does that make Warren a “man with heart for all people”? That to me is an example of a raging homophobe, even if he did not come off that way when you met him.

Obama is approaching civil discourse the wrong way here, in my opinion. He is in essence saying that it's ok to be public in saying these sorts of things. While you can't stop people from believing what they do, you shouldn't reward them for their hate and bigotry either.

By allowing Warren to give his blessing to this new Presidency, Obama is in essence saying it's ok to be open with your hatred as Warren is. That it's acceptable to say the things he has said. This move is dividing us even more, and that is not the fault of progressives.

My two pennies on the matter.

And you are right. Warren will be praying, not making policy. As a Jew, I listen to people pray to Jesus all the time and just ignore it and understand that I am not the majority.

“Disagree without being disagreeable” — he said that yesterday.