Those gays!  You can never please them!  We want this! We want that!  This isn't fair!  That's not good enough! Wah wah wah!  Crikey, what is it NOW?

First blindsided by the Prop 8 debacle, now betrayed by President-elect Obama, who has chosen anti-gay mega-evangelist Rick Warren to be the opening act at his inauguration!  Hey, wait a minute!  Isn't this a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Honestly, I think the media is making more of the outrage than there is.  If there were gays out there who thought Obama was ever anything but equivocal about the Gay Agenda in all its glory, they have no one to blame but themselves.  He reminded us all recently that he has been consistent in his stance on gay rights, and indeed he has been.  He has always been opposed to gay marriage*, a position he has linked to his religious beliefs, something he has very much in common with Reverend Warren. 

Still, the choice of Warren, who while insisting he's not opposed to "equal rights" lumps gay marriage in with incest, sexual abuse of children, and polygamy, does seem calculating. In fact, most liberal commentators, struggling to reconcile the move with the image of Obama they had conjured over the course of this campaign, have assured us all that they get why he did it. 

Whingey, cringey Andrew Sullivan (who's finally completed his transmorgrification into the Elton John of American letters) gets it, but still wonders if Obama "understands how deeply hurtful it is."  Poor Andrew has an ouchie.  Well, ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette, bitch.  As US News & World Report's Dan Gilgoth wrote in his blog: it's an early taste of the Democrats' post-election effort to reach evangelical Americans. 

That was always a jagged little pill for Obama supporters to swallow — and many never got it down.  Instead of embracing his call for compromise, many of his most ardent fans seemed to reinterpret it to their liking.  It meant not that they would have to meet those on the other side of the issues halfway, but that those on the other side, inspired by their candidate's compelling decency and wisdom, would finally see the way themselves, and of their own accord cross over to our side, where, after being deloused and metrosexualized, they would be sent on their way, newly enlightened citizens of our rehabilitated republic. 

The faithful praying for the conversion of nonbelievers.  Sound familiar?

There is no question, the fervor surrounding Obama, even among folks who fancied themselves irreligious (often declaring themselves too hip or highly educated to fall for that old mumbo-jumbo), was fundamentally religious in nature.  The Cult of Obama was plucked right out of Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces, and with relentless comparisons to moral giants like Lincoln and Mandela, ever since he hit the national stage he has been a quasi-religious figure, even for those who shun all non-Obama-centered religions.

Should Obama take personal responsibility for the Cult of Personality that swept him into office?  And for subsequently hurting Andrew Sullivan's feelings?  the President-Elect was almost certainly aware of his power as a symbol, as he said on more than one occasion.  So to downplay the extraordinary symbolism of his choice of Warren here seems naive.  But is it hurtful?  It's politics.  And as Bill Clinton once famously remarked, "politics ain't beanbag."

You do the math: on the one hand you have a vocal and powerful voting bloc that has been solidly Republican for a quarter century in meltdown mode and basically up for grabs.  On the other you have a bunch of screaming queens who aren't going anywhere.  Trust me: log cabins are cold and drafty, there's mold and mice and bugs — and as for the gayborhood, think Deliverance.  On the one hand you stand to gain significant ground politically, on the other you stand to lose, um, nothing.  Except for maybe Andrew Sullivan's googly-eyed adoration. 

And all I have to say to Andrew is: buck up.  It's a slap in the face, sure.  But think of it as a dick-slap.  See: all better.
_______________________________________________
*In 2004 he famously told the Chicago Tribune: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."  A position he did not change through the 2008 campaign for the presidency, and which I have every confidence he still holds.