An article from the AP today reported that gays are up in arms over Obama's pick of popular evangelical minister, Rick Warren.

FROM THE AP: "The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance." Emphasis mine.

This is outrageous for a couple of reasons. Take their definition of intolerance. For them, if you do anything which they find offensive you're being intolerant. Yet, they have no problem whatsoever with offending others and thus, by their own definition, being intolerant themselves. What a bunch of hypocrites. It seems that the only ones who have a right to be intolerant of anything are the gays mentioned in this article. They are the epitome of intolerance and are modeling it perfectly with their whining about Rick Warren.

Someone should get these people a dictionary and point out that you can't even be tolerant of someone unless you disagree with them. Do they disagree with Warren? Yes. Do they disagree with Obama for picking him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? Yes. Okay then, why in God's name can't they take their own hollow advice and be tolerant of the man? To quote from my good friend, Ron McClure Jr., "This is dumb."

They also feel that because Obama has done this, it means they (the gays) have no stake in the Obama presidency.

Well, I hate to ruin your day gay extremists (you'll have to find something else to bitch about…shouldn't be a problem, though), but anyone with an ounce of reason knows that President-elect Obama is a special interests sympathizer par excellence. The fact that he picked an anti-special interests guy to deliver the invocation means nothing from a legislative point of view. Get a clue people; he's still a neoliberal and will legislate as such.