In December, President-elect Barack Obama announced his picks for the religious figures to preside at his inauguration. The preacher who will offer up the benediction, longtime gay rights supporter Joseph Lowrey of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has garnered little mainstream media comment. Conversely, Obama's choice of the man to deliver the invocation -- evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren -- is nothing but  controversial. Warren, the author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," has compared gay relationships to things such as incest and pedophilia.

Since the announcement, countless editorials and articles have dissected his choice. Some applaud it as genius; others view it as indication that Obama will be quick to throw under the bus those who do not fit well in the center of politics. The debate on his choice still lingers in editorials published this week, with many asking the same question: Is Obama's choice a slap to the face of gays and lesbians, who might now stand still on the sidelines as the rest of the nation moves forward after such a momentous election?

New York Time's columnist Frank Rich writes: "By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history."

But was his choice meant to straddle the line between left and right, one that is meant to build bridges between politically-separated Americans, and was not meant to throw the gay and lesbian community under a truck?

When recently asked at a Chicago press conference why he would allow someone with such polarizing views to play such a strong role at his inauguration -- a new president's first day in office -- Obama responded: "Let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

"What I have also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues," Obama said. "There are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented, and that's how it should be, because that's what America's about, that's part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."

So was his choice meant to be inclusive of all Americans, regardless of whether they agree with you, and to build our nation's future with that theme in mind?

"Mr. Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the Inaugural's invocation suggests that he is intent on using the momentum of his remarkable victory to build a governing coalition for the long haul. The silver lining for Republicans may be that the left won't let him do that." (The Wall Street Journal)

To at least one writer, the move signals the times to come.

“I think Obama's selection of Warren may be an unwelcome sign for the GOP,” said Tony Fabrizio, a veteran GOP pollster and strategist, in an interview with Politico. “In selecting Warren, Obama and his people had to know that it would cause at least a minor uprising. Is this a clear signal that they are willing to test the ‘elasticity’ of their base in their moves to keep Obama pegged squarely in the middle? If so, those in my party who are biding their time just waiting for Obama to reveal his real agenda may have to start looking for another strategy.”

Regardless of his reason, "maybe the bridge Obama envisions really can be built -- although there will always be some who refuse to cross it."

Or maybe, as Warren himself recently said, "You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."