If the Warren invite (with which I disagree) is a tacit acceptance of bigotry ...

[11 Bravo]

is not the Lowery invite a tacit repudiation of same?
First, a caveat. I am an old, straight, white guy who by that accident of birth, has never experienced the toxic sting of bigotry. Sure, I can intellectualize it, but I've never personally FELT it. I consider myself a staunch supporter of GLBT rights. My wife and I spent money we don't have to fly our family to California earlier this year to share in the marriage ceremony of my younger brother and his partner of 25+ years. We took our boys (who love BOTH of their uncles unconditionally) with us because we wanted them to experience the joy for themselves firsthand. But at the end of the day, I still can not be gay. (And anyone who believes sexuality is a choice is not only dumb, they are HANNITY dumb.)
But what is one to make of watching DUers I have come to know and respect over the years eviscerating each other over an issue to which each side brings, by virtue of their own life experiences, such a different perspective?
I have no answers. I only know that it sucks, and that I hope the rancor ends soon.

[EFerrari]

1. If both of those things are true, where is the sand?

If I invite David Duke to my wedding, does inviting John Lewis cancel that out? What would that say to you?

[laconicsax]

2. No.

It is not.

[lapfog_1]

3. No.

Taken to the extreme, you would be saying that having Hitler come and speak to America would be OK so long as Mother Teresa immediately followed to offer "Point / CounterPoint".

And the inauguration (a celebration of a new President) is not the correct venue to offer this, even if you think that such debates are somehow legitimate.

We have been trained by the pundit TeeVee people to believe that anything is "fair" so long as both sides (usually extremes) are represented. This has been hurting us for decades now. Some concepts and speech should simply not be part of the public square. Not offered an air of legitimacy by being presented as the "opposing view". I am not saying that they should be censored, but they shouldn't be given mass media face time.