Torn on Rick Warren

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Tuesday's inauguration was President Obama's choice of evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the ceremony. The debate was sparked by Warren's outspoken support of the repugnant Proposition 8, which passed in California last November, as well as some remarks he made recently in which he equated homosexual unions with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy.

If there's one benefit to being an American citizen that I cherish above all others, it's the constitutionally protected right to free speech and expression, even when the ideas being publicized are unpopular or even despised. Such a freedom is the ultimate measure of an open, democratic society. That's why I initially defended Obama's choice. I disagree completely with Warren's perspective on the issue of gay marriage — and frankly, found his comments disgraceful — but this alone does not entitle me or anyone else to censor the pastor's expression of those views. In fact, as the new president, Obama has an obligation to represent and be inclusive of all Americans, not just those who voted for him in greatest numbers. Whether we like it or not — and I don't — many or most Americans still oppose the idea of same-sex marriage. Let's not forget that Obama also invited the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, to deliver another invocation.

This debate came up last month while I was at home visiting family for the holidays. One of my parents' friends expressed her disdain for Obama's choice to include Warren in his inauguration, so I explained to her my perspective on the matter. She replied that she understood the need for diversity of viewpoints at an event as historic as Tuesday's inauguration, but that someone like Jim Wallace of Sojourners would have been a much better selection for that purpose. If Warren had made similarly questionable comments about blacks, or Latinos, or Jews, she argued, he never would have received such an invitation from the president-elect. Gays still exist on a social cusp, she contended, at which it isn't yet considered universally unacceptable to make disparaging comments about them — not in the same way that it would be if those comments had applied to a racial or religious group.

Admittedly, I hadn't considered such an argument, and its validity caused me to re-evaluate my entire opinion on the controversy. Later on, I also realized that Warren's inclusion at the inauguration wasn't a free speech issue at all: Even if he hadn't been invited to deliver an invocation, his constitutional right to express his view wasn't infringed upon in the least. He could have stood across the street and done so as Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the (botched) oath of office. Speaking at an official state function is entirely distinct from exercising free speech.

I am therefore genuinely torn on this issue. On one hand, America has suffered through so many years of polarization and hostility between groups that it seems critical to finally have a leader who legitimately attempts to represent everyone. On the other hand, giving the podium to someone like Warren — whose remarks stigmatized a group of the population that overwhelmingly supported Obama's candidacy — can and already has had unintended consequences.