I suggest that we go from issue to issue, marching in the streets, pushing back at those who are already
pushing the President-elect!!!

More than 20,000 human beings die every day needlessly. The climate crisis threatens life on Earth. Our economy could fall into another Great Depression. Obama needs Warren and his followers to help deal with these issues. By demonizing Warren and failing to understand why people feel so strongly about wanting to give special status to male-female marriage, critics could weaken the Obama movement.

Warren has made a major contribution to saving the environment by undermining the coalition that was spreading disinformation about the climate crisis. His commitment to address global poverty and serving the needs of AIDS victims is clear. As Melissa Etheridge and others report, he is a kind person who is open to change. Obama knows him rather well personally, and I trust Obama’s judgment of character.

Kendell is wrong to say, “Warren’s views represent the most extreme outer margin of religious views on LGBT issues…. He rejects any recognition for our relationships.” In that infamous belief.net interview, Warren said, “No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs…. I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. …No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital…. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.” While Warren opposes gay marriage, he sees divorce as a far greater threat and he objects to all forms of non-traditional marriage, including polygamy, as well as a man and woman living together “in sin.” And he did not say, “Legal recognition of same-sex couples is as serious a threat to family life as incest and pedophilia.” Rather, his statement referred to the (hypothetical) idea of marriage between brother and sister or an older man and a child. We should treat our opponents more fairly than Kendell does in her comments.

Kendell is correct to say that gay marriage is an issue of “enormous cultural and political significance.” For good reason, however, Obama is trying to defuse the Culture Wars by affirming empathy and a non-ideological worldview. We need to learn from him in this regard.

Empathy can lead us to understand why so many people feel strongly about giving male-female marriage special status. In fact, there is something completely unique about male-female sexuality. It has been Nature’s way to help humanity perpetuate the species. Genes from both a man and a woman are necessary for the birth of a child. Society, therefore, has encouraged marriage between the father and mother of children, partly as a way to protect children and nurture their upbringing. And parenting a child produced by such a union, from the gene pool of the parents, is a unique experience.

These genetically and culturally engrained rooted tendencies are very strong and deep. Challenging them pushes buttons. So when we do so (as with other forms on non-traditional marriage), it is best to do so with some understanding.

Obama often states that his approach is rooted in a “pragmatic, progressive philosophy,” or worldview, rather than an “ideology.” But many reporters, pundits, and activists apparently don’t understand the distinction. Others unfortunately disagree.

An ideology is a set of abstract doctrines, or dogma, that claim absolute truth, as with various forms of fundamentalism. In fact, however, these abstractions are only one side of the truth. Ideologues refuse to acknowledge that reality is many-sided and insist on trying to shape reality according to their single-minded perspective.

A pragmatic worldview, on the other hand, is more tentative, is rooted in an awareness that our beliefs are based on assumptions that can’t be proven, is willing to appreciate the various sides of an issue, and is willing to experiment with what works best.

From this perspective, although I voted against Prop. 8 and would vote for a repeal, I also recognize that Rick Warren has many fine qualities and can contribute to progress on pressing material issues that aren’t largely cultural. We need Warren and as many of his followers as possible shoulder-to-shoulder on these other issues. He needs to be at the head of the table. If he tries to draw a circle that excludes some of us, we can redraw the circle to include him. Once again, Barack Obama, with his emotional competence and political savvy, leads the way.

I think too much power is being given this issue and far to much power to the person in question. Instead, we need to focus on a requirement that propositions are clearly written so that the public doesn’t get bamboozled into supporting of issues written so poorly and with so little clarity. That seems to be the larger issue here.