See here: http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-explicitly-bans-unrepentant.html

Also note that this has been pulled from the website, as part of the PR campaign: http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-pulls-anti-gay-language.html

And Yes, I mean PR campaign.

As for the program curing gays, it’s based on a 12-step model of curing alcoholism. See here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/19/warren-celebrate-recovery/

If the past few days have changed Rick Warren’s mind, I welcome that. But call me cynical. I think what it’s changed is his view of his own potential as “America’s pastor” – Melissa Etheridge and some quick website deletions helped him on his way.

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say “In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him.” They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

For those of you uncomfortable with the idea of Rick Warren delivering the invocation at the inauguration, here are two was to make your voice heard:

This one came directly to me. It’s a letter to which you can add your name.  It’s from a California progressive organization, “Courage Campaign”, to Rick Warren, inviting him to debate same sex marriage with Rev. Eric Lee:

Dear Rev. Rick Warren,

As Americans who believe in equal rights for all, we
would like to invite you to a debate about Proposition 8
and same-sex marriage.

The Reverend Eric Lee, President of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Greater Los
Angeles, has accepted our invitation to debate you at a
time and location to be determined.

While we strongly disagree with your views, we also
strongly believe that your views must be debated in a
public forum.

We hope you agree and accept this challenge to debate
Rev. Lee as soon as possible.

The undersigned,
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/RickWarrenDebate

This one is from “People For The American Way”.  This is a petition to Obama:

Dear President-elect Obama,

We were gravely disappointed to learn that Rev. Rick
Warren has been selected to deliver the invocation at
your inauguration. Rev. Warren was a poor choice to lead
the invocation due to his long history of hateful,
divisive rhetoric on important cultural and civil rights
issues. It’s not just that we disagree with him on the
issues–it’s that he uses his powerful platform to
marginalize those who disagree with him. He is not the
sort of leader who can help unite Americans. We agree
with you that everyone should have a seat at the table,
but only those who treat others with respect should get a
seat of honor.

http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=xhtgpcCaMyNUnfv5xu0dxA

No reason not to do both if you like. 

I went through a series of meetings in the 1990s where religious leaders tried to agree on a statement about treating each other with civility after weeks of escalating incidents in which anti-gay activists were aggressively picketing gay-friendly churches and, in retaliation, the Lesbian Avengers were targeting the homes of anti-gay ministers. A lesbian Unitarian minister and an anti-gay conservative minister (along with a third from somewhere in the middle) gained respect and even affection for each other in the process of meeting together to draft a statement. This personal connection did not change their policy positions. Eventually, the conservative minister withdrew from the group when he realized he was blocking consensus: from his religious standpoint, he could not be at the table with the rest of us, even though he had gained great personal respect for the lesbian minister and the others he had worked with in the group. No “happy ending” here, except that the human beings were able to be in the same room together and really talk, despite realizing from the talk where they still had fundamental differences. You cannot compromise on who you are and your core values. If you are going to try to cross boundaries, you have to do it carrying your true self into the new setting. Sometimes you just become appalled at what other people really believe. But I still think it is better to know them than not to know them, and better to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters.

I agree about “being the the room.” The problem is that my experience suggests that being in the room creates exceptions to rules, and not a rethinking of the rules themselves. Even in four or five pages there’s no good answer. I wish I could argue about a distinction between existence (who you are) and belief – but unfortunately those categories aren’t so pure as to make the argument robust. My sense is that in the end it’s going to be a highly contentious political struggle. And there will be losers.

Regarding the language I objected to, I’ve sat here for an hour, writing and erasing comments. I can’t do justice to what I think about this without writing four or five pages. I’ll just say it makes me think of wars and the way opponents get demonized.

Now that Warren’s praise for Syria, and his attempts at covering up these comments, have been uncovered, I wonder if this will be the tipping point (in addition to the outrage expressed over his GLBT comments).

@12.trey1: There have actually been a good few moves by Obama that are surprising. So my frustration is not really “quick” as much as it is building. The most obvious among these is his willingness to go with a “same old Washington” selection – his organizational strategy seems quite conservative, and strikes me as running counter to his “new” organizational strategy that helped him win him the election.

@18.akphd: Yep. And what about the interior secretary? Ken Salazar? Seriously? You know it’s worrying with oil, gas, mining, and agrobusiness lobbyists are lauding the decision.

@20.tina: I was more radical during the Clinton presidency than I am now (I had a list of places to bring my pick axe during the revolution). But I still have this residual feeling of enormous disappointment with the guy. Don’t ask don’t tell is pretty much where it comes from. I have to say that Kieran (@9) is probably right in suggesting that it will be even worse under Obama (disappointment/liberal backlash). It actually strikes me as great place to revive the relative deprivation thesis. High expectation states (perhaps unreasonably so) and a reality that does not match.

@22.olderwoman: I have a tough time with this. How do you respect the sincerity or intelligence of a group whose majority, at best, wants to treat you as a second class citizen, and at worst, wants to wipe you off the face of the earth (not the killing, of course, but through “correction” programs)? That’s actually a sincere question.

@24.socfreak: I completely agree. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw polygamists under the bus on this one. With one exception: if we’re going to have polygamy, we should have polygyny and polyandry. Otherwise you have quite a gendered system of marriage.

I agree on the pragmatist piece. But I would also note that one can be a pragmatist with principles. Obama is not so completely rudderless as to simply be pragmatic on every decision, is he? If not (and I believe he is a pragmatist with principles) I feel he’s given up on one with this decision: the respect and dignity of LBGT folks.

OW: I hope you don’t see me as anti-religious. My point is that Warren is among those who things irreligion and even difference in religion is intolerable, which IMHO is wrong. I am (somewhat) religious myself and certainly think religion is both good and unavoidable.