Warren, Cizik, Obama, left, right, pro, anti, etc.

Brian, thank you for this posting. As best we can tell, this is the kind of thinking that P-E Obama wants to inspire by his pick of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. In fact, whatever his intention, he is pushing us out of our ideological comfort zones, something that desperately needs to be done. It is not likely that the great majority of the gay left or the evangelical will see in this opportunity anything but threat. But, perhaps, both Mr. Obama and pastor Warren can broaden the homeless space that you speak of and make it a little more inhabitable for those of us who have long lived in it.

Selecting an anti-gay marriage opponent to deliver the invocation is tolerable (but not "acceptable") were it not for some particular statements "Reverend" Rick Warren made after Proposition 8 was passed concerning his opposition to gay marriage. He said he opposes same sex couples from marrying, just as he would oppose brothers and sisters from marrying (and worse), just as he would oppose a pedophile from marrying his or her victim.

I'm sorry but pedophiles are considered the outcasts in communities across America (and around the world for that matter) for very good reasons. We in the gay community don't need to hear our relationships or the vehemence with which they should be opposed, compared to those who prey upon children. It is not only insulting and demeaning but also inflammatory and can in no uncertain terms be held up as within the bounds of the "civil discourse" the president-elect wishes to promote.

Couldn't he, when reaching out to the socially conservative evangelical community, picked a minister who doesn't make that comparison and if so, why didn't he?

John, Rick Warren's comment may have seemed "incendiary," but only if one takes his analogy too far. Remember, all analogies break down at a point. Rick Warren's point, in his comment, was to say that "marriage" (by definition) has a specific meaning: the formal union of a man and a woman. THAT is what marriage means and what it has always meant. When pedophiles and polygamists are mentioned in this context, the point is to say that marriage has a specific meaning and not any and all unions between people meet that definition.

Out of all the ways God could choose to illustrate the intimate relationship He has with His people, the primary one He chose was the union between a husband and wife. This is significant. The husband (and his relationship toward his wife) would illustrate the relationship God has with His people on earth. God (through Christ) is the Bridegroom. And we, as the church, are His bride. The marriage relationship (should be) a testimony, a parallel, and a living example of this divine relationship. Husbands should be reflecting self-sacrificial love toward their wives as an example of God's self-sacrificial love towards His people; likewise, wives (or brides) should reflect the relationship (or role) that the church has toward her Bridegroom.

This "picture" that God has painted (through ordained marriage in Genesis 2), is why Rick Warren and many others (myself included) cannot support gay marriage. It distorts the "picture" that God has painted. And believe it or not, we are able to believe this way and still love gay people. In fact, we are not the hate-mongers that people have made us out to be. We just believe marriage has a certain definition, and we are trying to protect it.

I appreciate your comments on being "homeless". I also appreciate the spirit in wanting to take the conversation to a different level of discouse that does not seek to generalize and put people in "camps" based on the tired labels. It really does keep us from being generous in discourse and in relationships. Most Blogs-media-and discourse it seems to me do not attempt to promote this though. The higher level discourse does not sell magazines, get web traffic or sell books. Appreciate your history of being generous with orthodoxy in the past and even seeking to stretch yourself to be more generous in other dimensions as we move into 2009. Come back and see us in Birmingham some time..

Rick Warren's point, in his comment, was to say that "marriage" (by definition) has a specific meaning: the formal union of a man and a woman. THAT is what marriage means and what it has always meant.

ummm... ok, if you remove from consideration the fact that up until about 150 years ago, it was primarily a financial transaction in which women were seen as chattel and property to be passed from father to husband. You also have to remove from consideration the fact that up until about 40 years ago, it was the formal union of a man and a woman who happened to have the same skin color. If you're going to talk about what marriage has always meant, you can't ignore its problematic history as a force for the oppression of women and people of color in Western culture.

When pedophiles and polygamists are mentioned in this context, the point is to say that marriage has a specific meaning and not any and all unions between people meet that definition.

You really think it's that innocent? Honestly? Comparing lesbian and gay couples to pedophiles - perhaps the most reviled people in our culture - is just an innocent side effect? This claim is so preposterous that I have a hard time believing you actually believe this. This is pretty weak spin.

Out of all the ways God could choose to illustrate the intimate relationship He has with His people, the primary one He chose was the union between a husband and wife. This is significant.

God chose a number of ways to illustrate the relationship God (who, I might remind you, is not a "He" or a "She" as God has no genitals) has with God's people. One of them was the marriage relationship. The other was that of a shepherd and sheep. Like you said, all analogies break down.

This "picture" that God has painted (through ordained marriage in Genesis 2), is why Rick Warren and many others (myself included) cannot support gay marriage. It distorts the "picture" that God has painted.

...which should not matter one iota in American government, which explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion. You may believe that same-sex marriages are a "distortion of God's picture" (which, in my opinion, is putting pretty red lipstick on the same homophobic pig), but you do not have the right to use the coercive force of law to impose your religious beliefs on others, or to privilege your view of "God's picture" over others' view.

And believe it or not, we are able to believe this way and still love gay people. In fact, we are not the hate-mongers that people have made us out to be.

I'm going to stop being polite: That is a huge load of bull. What kind of "love" is it to tell people that they do not deserve equal civil rights - and that thus they are essentially subhuman? What kind of "love" compares the love between two consenting adults to incest or pedophilia? What kind of "love" tells people that their only choices are to live a celibate life, never loving a person romantically as they are made to do, or burn in Hell?

If this is what you think a "love" position is, then you need to seriously reconsider the meaning of the word. If what I just named above - which is Rick Warren's position, and the position of evangelical Christians who agree with him - isn't hate, then I don't know what is. You can protest that you have gay friends, or that this is really a loving position, but as long as you stand in the way of equal rights for all, you are not acting out of love but out of something else.

Okay James, let me tell you where you're wrong about my views. My point is that marriage is a formal union between a husband and wife. That DOESN'T mean it has not been used immorally, as a means of oppression. You pointing that out takes nothing away from my fundamental point of God ordaining marriage for a specific purpose and "picture."

And I was not "spinning" my second point. I really do believe what I said. And for you to believe that what I said isn't true, you logically must think that Rick Warren places pedophilia (the rape of children) on the same level as consensual homosexuality. That is preposterous. I will reiterate the point of his analogy: Marriage does not mean any union can be formalized. It is a formal union of a man and woman.

Third, I am aware that God chose a number of ways to express His relationship with His people, which is why I used the word "primary." Furthermore, God can't be expressed as a "He" now? Really? I mean, I know this is a liberal site, but open up your Bible for crying out loud.

Fourth, I know we have a government that doesn't establish a religion, which is why nothing I said is remotely relevant to that comment. The United States is a representative republic, and the people of 30 or so states (so far) have not allowed marriage to be re-defined (that's every state that has had marriage on the ballot). And this happened through the democratic process. The Biblical point is my reasoning. Other people have different reasons. The bottom line is this: The people of this country want the traditional definition of marriage to be upheld. That doesn't make us hate-mongers and that isn't a civil rights violation. Words have meaning, and it's clear what the people of this country (and currently what the people of California) have decided what they want "marriage" to mean. (Don't worry, I'm sure some judge will usurp the will of the people and legislate from the bench to overturn Prop 8.)

Finally, I don't think a homosexual is a "subhuman" that "doesn't deserve equal rights." Do you really believe that someone can't be for the traditional definition of marriage but also have nothing against gay people? I'm for civil unions. I believe gay couples should have the same civil rights of straight couples (because I don't view them as less human). However, that doesn't mean I have to turn in my view of marriage. I also don't believe a man should be able to have two wives (even if it is consensual). That doesn't mean I view them as subhuman. I just don't believe that such a union should be classified as a "marriage." Furthermore, I would never say that such a lifestyle would make a gay person "burn in Hell." Salvation comes through faith in Christ, not through works (Ephesians 2).