Rick Warren To Lead Prayer At Obama Inauguration-So What?

You have to hand it to Barak Obama. Like most presidents, he promised he would do his utmost to be the president of all Americans, so his decision to have Pastor Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration seems in keeping with that promise, and that tradition of inclusion. It is particularly impressive when you stop to consider that, more than any other single person, Rick Warren came closest to derailing the presidential campaign of Barak Obama, when the candidate appeared with John McCain at the so-called "Saddleback Forum", named after the Saddleback Church in California of which Warren is the pastor.

Obama made an extremely poor showing and came across to many conservative and even moderate Americans as both arrogant and somehow at the same time evasive. McCain's remarks, by contrast, propelled him in the polls over Obama appreciably. Had the election been held just a few days later, McCain would have handily won.

Of course, it did not turn out that way, and it is true that the victorious Obama can certainly afford to be gracious, but that's beside the point. This seems to be at least an attempt to heal divisions and at least put on a show of bringing the country together.

However, the gay activist community is in an uproar over the decision, mainly due to Warren's opposition to gay marriage, especially his opposition to the California Supreme Court decision upholding the rights of gays to marriage in that state. It is perhaps understandable they feel that way, in that Warren was instrumental in leading the drive to outlaw gay marriage in California, a drive which was successfully implemented by way of popular vote during the last election.

Well, as much as I would like to say I don't really care about this matter, the facts remain, many people do, and are opposed to gay marriage. For the gay lobby to expect a president of the US to relegate a man whose views on this matter represents the majority of Americans to the background is short-sighted at best.

For one thing, there are many good and valid reasons to support gay marriage, but there are as many equally valid reasons to oppose it. Here are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Divorce Court. The court dockets throughout the nation are crammed to overflowing as it is. Why add to it? Who would it really benefit?

2. Child adoption. Some might make a case that under the Equal Protection clause of the constitution, gay couples would have just as much right to adopt a child as a heterosexual couple. If this were decided in the affirmative, it would be a disaster. True, some gay couples would undoubtedly make as good or even better adoptive parents than many heterosexual couples, but that's beside the point. There would be an internal conflict within the mind of an adoptive child that could cause just more problems, and if there is anything kids in this world have more than enough of, it's problems.

It would be absurd to imagine that school kids would be accepting and tolerant of children with same sex parents. Sure, some would, but most would not. At the very best, the child would be shunned by many if not most of his peers. At worse, they would be subject to unfair speculation and bullying.

In the long run, this could all create a backlash against gay citizens like nothing they have yet experienced. Yet, they seem not to consider any of this.

3. The Boy Scouts. Gays have cut their own throat by assaulting this organization and insisting they be denied access to public lands, tax exempt status, etc. Their case for such a position is shaky at best, but they pursue it relentlessly, or at least have in the past. This leaves the impression that gay activists want nothing more than to force their will on any organization, including churches, that do not welcome them in at least with open arms, if not zippers. Well, there are certain churches and other religious groups that are never going to do that, tax exemptions be damned. At the same time, it's hard to fault them for wanting to maintain that firewall against any prospect of limiting their rights as organizations which they have traditionally enjoyed.

Gays deny this intent of course, but as surely as night follows day, there are some who will pursue this tactic vociferously, just as they have against the Boy Scouts organization. Who can blame religious organizations for casting a wary eye at them, especially when they see the debaucel that has unfolded within the Episcopal Church over the last few years. Some legitimately suggest this has happened through leftist and/or gay activist infiltration. I don't know that I would go that far, but it is certainly a valid point of inquiry. Does anyone doubt for a minute that, without the leadership of Rome, the American Catholic Church might well take a similar position?

Well, like it or not, there are conservative Christians who hold to a more traditionalist view of Biblical scripture and, like it or not, they aren't going to sit by calmly while more liberal views are crammed down their throat. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they aren't just going to bend over and take it like men. At the same time, they would prefer to not have to be put in that position to begin with, and they feel, with much justification, that liberalization of gay marriage laws might well lead to just that, and more.

All of these things are questions that will have to be answered forthrightly and openly by the leadership of the gay community before there can ever be any progress made at acceptance of that same gay community by mainstream American society. These are real and valid concerns that will not be answered by the typical leftist flame-throwing and name calling tactics.

Rick Warren, by the way, is not by any means a "conservative" Christian. He is actually quite moderate, at least in comparison to such fundamentalist stalwarts as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Doctor James Dobson. For the gay community to demand that Obama cast him and his followers into the political wilderness of outer darkness is actually quite intolerant and dogmatic, when you stop to think about it.

Personally, I feel the First Amendment Rights of everyone should be respected, including those of fundamentalist Christians. No one has a constitutional right to be universally loved. Obama felt anything but love when he spoke at Warren's Saddleback Forum. If he can move on, everyone else should do likewise.