The Post In Which I Defend Obama From Frank Rich

Frank Rich's mildly critical column in which he attempts to make the case that President-elect Obama is exhibiting a form of intolerance by extending an invitation to include Pastor Rick Warren at his inauguration ceremony is, well, intolerant.  Actually, Rich's words display perfectly how the left has redefined the term diversity to advance its agenda and stifle traditional, conservative thought:

But we’re not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.

Actually, Obama's description of "a wide range of viewpoints" is exactly what diversity should be.  It doesn't mean that one has to accept a diverse viewpoint, but the true test of intolerance is to try to render a disagreeable view as being so unacceptable that its purveyors shouldn't be considered as legitimate members of polite, sophisticated society.  

By arguing that Warren should not have invited to participate in the inauguration, Rich is being more intolerant than open-minded.  After all, the issue that motivated his column was gay marriage.  It's not comparable to a call for genocide or a similar and dangerous form of extremism.  As Rich himself notes, most of America's prominent political leaders are opposed to gay marriage, as are the majority of Americans.  

Rich should also consider that homosexuals seeking to unite in holy matrimony are not denied any right that heterosexuals aren't themselves denied under the law.  

As a heterosexual man, I'm permitted to marry a woman, but am denied marriage to a man.  A homosexual man is perfectly free to marry a woman.  Some might believe this argument rings hollow, but it's valid insofar as it undermines the argument made by homosexuals that they are somehow uniquely denied from participation in the institution of marriage.  If the counter argument is that it's permissible to base marriage solely on emotional and physical attraction, then how does one possibly make a credible argument against something like polygamy?

The point is that Frank Rich has decided to use an odd issue to apparently criticize the leftist bone fides of President-elect Obama.   Rick Warren's position on gay marriage is exactly where the majority of Americans are on the issue.  If Rich was truly an adherent of diversity, he would respect that such a view may be abhorrent to him, but that, considering the facts, President-elect Obama has done nothing remotely intolerant in giving Warren such a prominent role.

If Rich is going to be this sensitive, he's going to have a really hard time coping if President-elect Obama governs from the center.