A persistent prejudice Obama must address

Pastor problems to the left of him, pastor problems to the right -- Barack Obama is learning that religion is often the quickest path to holy heck in American politics.

After angering conservatives during the campaign by initially defending his close relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama is now drawing fire from liberals for asking evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

Warren is a popular California preacher who has helped the sick and poor around the world while inspiring millions through his megaselling series of "Purpose Driven Life" books. He was also a vocal supporter of Proposition 8 in California, the November ballot measure that rejected same-sex marriage.

Liberals contend that Obama should not give a place of honor to someone with anti-gay views. In a letter to Obama, Joseph Solomnese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination."

The president-elect is not moved by such pleas. After saying he has sharp differences with Warren, Obama is casting his invitation to the pastor as representing his effort to recognize a broad array of voices. I'm guessing he thinks it might help him attract evangelical votes in 2012.

Obama also knows he has the wind at his back here. He shed Wright because few people were willing to defend that minister's controversial statements. By contrast, Warren's anti-gay position reflects mainstream opinion.

Echoing other surveys, a recent Newsweek poll found that about two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage. No statewide vote has ever endorsed the practice, while 30 states have explicitly banned it.

As voters in California and Florida helped elect Obama president in November, they also passed measures against gay marriage (as did voters in McCain-leaning Arizona).

The few states that permit gay marriage, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, have legitimized it through court rulings and not popular will.

If Warren is an anti-gay bigot, then so are most Americans.

Unfortunately, that's the case.

Why should the state care?

Every argument against gay marriage is rooted in prejudice. There is no compelling state interest that should trump the gay community's demand for equal rights.

Opponents of same-sex marriage offer two lines of attack.

The first is religious. The Bible (and the Quran), they say, casts homosexuality as a sin. That's true. But the Bible also suggests that the world is 6,000 years old and offers scores of rules we blithely ignore. I don't believe anyone wants to start executing adulterers (Leviticus 20:10).

If most believers followed the Bible literally, their rejection of homosexuality would truly reflect their faith. Instead, they cite its prohibition because it confirms their prejudices and fears.

The second line of attack involves the slippery slope. If we approve gay marriage, opponents say, then everything will be permissible.

Warren expressed this rationale in a December interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com.

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage [as being between a man and a woman]," he explained. "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

In fairness, his appeal to 5,000 years of history is not without weight. Social structures do not arise and endure willy-nilly but because they satisfy basic societal needs. They also change over time as they conflict with evolving needs and sensibilities.