Once the Bishop realized that Todd was not planning to indoctrinate the congregants by reading the text of Obama's back-to-school speech, he should've been relieved and sat back and listened to whatever it was Todd had to say.
Look, we're all Democrats. Many (most?) of us here have worked and are working to strengthen our party.
That said, as far as I'm concerned, approaching LGBT issues with an attitude of noblesse oblige is not a Democratic MO. We can have fundamental disagreements about tactics and timetables, but it smacks of "turnspeak" to resort to calling an understandable reaction from one of our constituencies "blackmail" ... imho, that's not a particularly grown-up or otherwise useful characterization.
fwiw, I agree with your assessment, and I'd take it further and suggest that those who care about this issue would do well to not only keep it in mind but also include church attendance and outreach as a form of activism. That said, when you move beyond assessment to laying blame and accusing equality advocates of alienating allies, I think you ignore an important human reality and a core feature of the same religious component that you reference: many churches have been pursuing a strategy of actively alienating their LGBT membership.
We can all do better, but berating those who've historically been shunned (or worse) by our "religious country" would also seem to be an unproductive strategy that needlessly alienates a group that has been a reliable Democratic ally.
Fact it, there's not a lot of disagreement on DADT.
I'm sure you're familiar with the polling.
By the way, "gay rights" is a useless term.
Let's jut be upfront and talk specifically about each and every right we're comfortable denying or allowing to LGBT Americans without just chucking all their rights into one basket for our own convenience, OK?
By the way, did you check out Marie? Seriously, all rancor aside, as far as replies go, she pegged it, didn't she?