Hilary Rosen on Anderson Cooper 360 rose to our defense last night, succinctly and passionately describing the outrage of many in the LGBT community over Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation for the inauguration.

Hillary Rosen: “First the glibness, that, well it’s just a bunch of gays being unhappy that people don’t agree with them, is wrong. You know, (at) one time the Bible was used to justify slavery. If this was a preacher, out there, using more weapons against African-Americans we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, so second of all, the fact that we’re even having a conversation, means that this is a mistake in choice. This is a day when people are to be brought together. There are hundreds of preachers across the country with stature and thoughtfulness and other ways to bring this country together on an inauguration day for the new president. That’s the choice he should have made.”

Watch the clip.

As expected, here is the defense circulated by the Obama campaign this morning:

“This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.

In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world’s most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

As he’s said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That’s the only way we’ll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.

And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.”

And Obama’s response to the controversy this morning.

I suppose we should be thankful the inclusiveness doesn’t extend to Fred Phelps. Or David Duke.

First the gays! And now the left-handers! Will traditional marriage ever be safe?

The debate over Prop 8 and same-sex marriage continues. I’ve got three video clips and you should watch them in order. The first one may be a struggle to get through… but trust me it’ll be worth it in the end….

First Kirk “Growing Pains” Cameron on The Factor with Bill O’Reilly.

Boy, that was a little more than painful. Are you angry now? Now the ladies from The View…

As usual Whoopi is the voice of reason. Are you as frustrated as she is? And finally a much needed ray of hope…

That little girl is the future, and I hope we don’t have to wait until she’s 18 to experience it.

Cassandra Handley, author of VF.com’s “A Mormon View” blog, feels the Mormon church has been unfairly criticized since the passage or Prop 8. Vanity Fair published a conversation between Handley and Sue Carswell, representing the L.G.B.T. community, and moderated by Michael Hogan, V.F.’s executive online editor.

Here are few of the more interesting exchanges:

Hogan: But if it’s just about semantics, why is the Mormon church trying to change the constitution of the state of California?

Handley: We have something that we call the Proclamation of the Family that basically states our position on the importance of the family. We value family as being the most crucial institution in the world. And the first statement of that proclamation, which I don’t have memorized, is something along the lines of, We believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it says something along the lines of, We value procreation so much, and the way that procreation can take place is between a man and a woman.

Carswell: I’m sure there are members of your church who can’t have babies and go through fertility treatments, adoption. The same way that gay couples can and do in their own marriages.

I can’t understand why you would come to my wedding when you say what you just said. I’m not getting a civil union. I’m having a wedding. What’s the difference between the two that I’m not getting here? You would come to my civil union? Of course you would, according to what you’re saying. But you’d also come to my marriage, yet you’re saying that you’re against marriage.

Handley: The thing is, though, if this proposition had not passed, religious groups could have been forced to conduct same-sex weddings. And if they refused, they could have been open to legal action.

Hogan: That’s not really a rationale for changing the constitution of the state to say that same sex-couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married anywhere and that a bunch of people who’ve already been married now have to lose their marriage licenses. That’s an argument to say, You shouldn’t force us to conduct same sex marriages, which is a much more modest goal.

and…

Hogan: Let’s talk about definitions of marriage and how they have changed in the L.D.S. church over time, and the fact that there was a time when polygamy was recognized in the L.D.S. church.

Handley: There was a time.

Hogan: And when did that end?

Handley: In order for Utah to become a state, it obviously had to give it up. And this happened in the late 1800s. [Utah became a state in 1896.]

Before that, though, when the church was founded, there was gross prosecution. People were killed. They were tarred and feathered. Our first prophet [Joseph Smith] was martyred. So the first members fled from place to place. They faced hatred and resentment, much of it having to do with the practice of polygamy.

Hogan: This is what’s strange to me. Here’s a church with a history of being persecuted, having to find a place where it could practice its beliefs on its own, and eventually thriving in that place, in Utah. How did they get to the point where now they’re saying, “We want to dictate the laws of California to reflect our religious beliefs”? They didn’t want the law of other religions to affect them back in the day.

Handley: They wanted the L.D.S. voters in California to take the proposition into consideration.

The entire post can be viewed here.