It seems to me that all the discussion of whether Rick Warren ought to give the inaugural invocation loses sight of some of the most fundamental issues. The point at issue should not be whether Mr. Warren is a bigot. We have bigots all around us and always will. There is nothing illegal about being obnoxious, irritating, or a bigot. The real point should be whether the person delivering the invocation truly represents fundamental American principles.

Mr. Warren holds certain religious principles that I find hideous and a clear affront to Christianity. In fact, I view him as one of the most anti-Christian people in our society today. However, it is his fundamental right to hold those religious principals, however odious they might be. In fact, it is our obligation, as Americans, to fight and even die for his right to hold those religious principals. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.

Closely allied to freedom of religion is separation of church and state. Our founding fathers explicitly made separation of church and state a fundamental principal of American government. It is that principal that Rick Warren has egregiously violated. He has fought to legislate his religious principles into law. There is one and only one basis for outlawing same-sex marriages, and that is religion. I don’t care how a majority of voters, influenced by false arguments from people like Rick Warren, vote with regard to Proposition 8; in the end, it is a violation of one of the most fundamental values in American government. In addition, it is unconstitutional.

Rick Warren does have the right to hold his religious views; he does not have the right to compel me, through legislation, to live according to his view of religion. He also does not have the right to forbid my minister from performing same-sex marriages. I have a right to hold and act according to my religious views as long as they don’t cause injury to my fellow citizens.

Those who would argue that there is a historical basis for marriage being between a man and a women simply fail to look at and learn from history. Historically, dictatorship has been the predominate form of government. Are they ready to give up democracy for the more traditional form of government. Historically, marriages have been polygamous and often involving children. Are you ready to go with that historical tradition.

If civil unions are separate but equal (an argument that has never worked), why not just do away with the government’s involvement in marriage altogether. You know, in many European countries, you go to the government to obtain a civil marriage contract. Then, if you want, you go to church for a religious ceremony. If Mr. Warren feels that civil unions are so acceptable, why not just have everyone, all those who want same-sex unions and all those who prefer mixed-sex unions, go get a civil union. Then, those who chose to do so, can go have a marriage ceremony in Mr. Warren’s church.

What is so very wrong with Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Warren for the invocation is that Mr. Warren so clearly does not believe in and support fundamental American principles. Mr. Warren has the right to be what I clearly feel is an anti-Christ. But it is entirely wrong to put an anti-American on the inaugural dias.

Sorry, Larry, you're just ahead of your time.

It should be pointed out that legally, all a marriage is is a civil contract....its called a marriage licence. The religous part is optional. Ever heard of getting married by a justice of the peace?

LarryTX, you are absolutely right. Please read my posting. What concerns me now is not Rick Warren, an obvious charlatan, but Barack Obama. If he is so blatantly ignorant of such basic issues, how can he lead this country? Politicians would do best to stick to politics, which they know, and leave religion, which they apparently know nothing about, to others.

Seems like he is leaving it to Rick Warren, who seems to know a lot about religion...(not sure if he knows God but he knows religion).