 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 35 members and 1532 guests online.
|
Developing: HBO says they aren't to blame for not including Gene Robinson in concert special
Sunday afternoon, HBO televised the Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial — a concert planned by the Presidential Inauguration Committee — to kick off the festivities surrounding Obama's inauguration on Tuesday. Openly gay bishop Gene Robinson delivered the opening prayer before the start of the concert, but the prayer was not included as part of HBO's broadcast. Contacted Sunday night by AfterElton.com concerning the exclusion of Robinson's prayer, HBO said via email, "The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show." Uncertain as to whether or not that meant that HBO was contractually prevented from airing the pre-show, we followed up, but none of the spokespeople available Sunday night could answer that question with absolute certainty. However, it does seem that the network's position is that they had nothing to do with the decision. We have also contacted a spokesperson from the Presidential Inauguration Committee (PIC) for their explanation and will post what we learn either from PIC or HBO . Wherever the fault lies, this is yet another unfortunate turn involving GLBT concerns over Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the prayer at Obama's inauguration. Many in the gay community saw Robinson's selection to deliver Sunday's prayer as an olive branch. But given that most Americans could not attend the concert, instead having to watch it on television, the decision to not broadcast the prayer is being seen by many in the GLBT community as a slight. The exclusion of Robinson, even if unintentional, does not reflect well on the Obama administration's ability thus far to think through these sorts of nuances. Submitted by on Mon, 2009-01-19 00:49. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Excuses, Excuses!
If anyone with half a brain over at Home Box Office would know that this has been a point of contention with the LGBT community and would have moved heaven and earth to have gotten this right and INCLUDED this as part of the broadcast and kept us off their case.
At best, this is a clear indication that as an entertainment outlet, Home Box Office is out-of-touch with a group of viewers who have supported them well (Sex & the City) over the years.
Remember this, my brothers, and view accordingly in the future.
Thanks, Michael
Not Slight - It's Outright Suppression
"the decision to not broadcast the prayer is being seen by many in the GLBT community as a slight"
THIS WAS NOT A "SLIGHT", IT WAS CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED TO SUPPRESS GENE ROBINSON WHILE LEAVING LOTS OF EXCUSES FOR THE OBAMA TEAM TO KEEP THEIR HANDS CLEAN. The whole thing sounds like a Rove-Bush trick. So much for HOPE. . .
Bishop Robinson's "slight"
Video of the Invocation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWWAnitUCw4
At least someone recorded it...
does anyone have any information
Obama Fu@ks up again
Why does this all seem oddly familiar?
Oh! Maybe because:
Report: Obama, Not Feinstein or Committee, Made Warren Choice
HBO AND the Obama team are lying.
Word has it that there was a long break (15 min) between the prayer and the beginning of the celebrity performances. This was INTENTIONAL and done by the organizing committee to give HBO the excuse that they couldn't air the prayer because it would have left too much "dead air" before the show began. So SHAME on the organizing committee for pulling this shameful stunt to intentionally bury Bishop Robinson's prayer.
That however does not explain why HBO didn't introduce the Washington D.C. gay men's chorus (the ONLY act or backup chorus not named), nor why they failed to even identify them with a screen label.
This whole ordeal has turned this Obamabot completely off. Every step along the way we have been told that we were overreacting and ungrateful but it seems clearer by the minute that we were IN FACT being slighted and hidden.
I'm just disgusted with the whole lot of them.
Can We Please Get Over This Already?
With the way everyone is b**ching & moaning over Warren and Gene Robinson, you'd swear the former was being made Vice President and the latter was nailed to a cross!
Let's be real here, THESE BLOODY PRAYERS DON'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS BEING INCLUDED IN A GOVERNMENT EVENT! I DON'T CARE WHO'S SAYING THEM!
We have more important things to expend our energy on than this, so why don't we drop this and move on.
I've gotta tell you: I've
I've gotta tell you: I've lurked on this site since its birth but I just registered to tell you THANK YOU for pointing this out as the unimportant matter that it is. Thank you thank you thank you.
I'm a bisexual Christian and I am *hardly* up in arms over this. I find it laughable that some people are actually chalking this up to some conspiracy by Obama. I mean... really???
Your commentary is a breath of fresh air and calm nerves amidst a sea of unnecessary martyrdom. Bless you.
I might agree with you
if this was the first time something like this had happened. But, it isn't. And, it doesn't seem to happen to any group BUT LGBT.
Remember back to the primaries when Donnie McClurkin was booked for the Obama gospel tour? We were told at the time that the Obama team was unaware of McClurkin's anti-gay position when they booked him. And they assured us he would only sing and not express his opinions. But, then McClurkin went ahead and spouted his anti-gay rhetoric at the concert anyway. They booked a gay minister to open that gospel concert to "balance" McClurkin. But, his prayer was scheduled very early, most ofthe ausience had not yet arrived and he said nothing about the LGBT community to counter what McClurkin would spew forth later in the evening.
Does this sound strikingly familiar to what happened Sunday with Bishop Robinson?
One time, it's an oops. Do the EXACT SAME thing over again, it's intentional.
Does it really matter, though?
I understand what you're saying and I remember that incident. But here's a couple of points.
1. Obama never claimed to be our strongest ally or proponent of gay rights.
2. Neither Mclurkin nor Warren are being put into positions of advisory status. If they were being put on a committee answering to the President or a cabinet position or listed as special or senior advisor, then we in the GLBT community would have a reason to do something. But over what essentially winds up to nothing more than a couple of prayers? We're waisting what little energy and political currency we have over this.
It matters to me
Obama owes this community nothing. And as a politician he is positioned to lie. I expect the lies. As a citizen I am positioned to call him out on his lies, implied or otherwise.
Warren has been given an historical pulpit to speak from and the honored task of blessing the new president. It is an honer he disgraces because of his prejudice toward the gay community. It is Obama's choice to identify the people he wishes to bless him and the nation. If I am not included in those blessings, so be it.
I believe that Warren would be better used as an advisor or speaker to a committee. He is welcome to his opinion and it should be included in debate, especially if the debate is concerned with religion. But choosing him as inaugural pope is an insult to gay people.
I don't get that
It's better to have Warren as an advisor than to simply say a prayer that everyone will forget three months from now?
I'm sorry, but please explain that to me because I absolutely don't understand that line of reasoning. Because unless I'm mistaken you're then saying that when it comes to the office of The President, you'd rather put god above all and while that may be an admirable religious feeling or thought, it has no bearing on a government event. If anything it speaks to my earlier point of a prayer having no place at a government event.
It's about the hat
Yes I can think of ways that Warren might be a helpful advisor for Obama. For instance, if the president created a committee to investigate the best ways of offer service to AIDS survivors in Africa, Warren chould speak to that committee about his much touted service and might be a logical appointment to sit. Or on issues of religious interest he might join in a debate on the role of religion in politics, or perhaps to speak at a conference that is open to all religious leaders across the U.S. Of course none of these would give him national attention and his opinions would remain just that, an opinion, not a seemingly endorsed world view, like the Invocation will project..
VIEW FROM GREECE
Secularism ? Separation of Church and State ?
I still think that, being gay or not, a priest, a cleric or any religious things have nothing to do in a political event.
In Europe, this mixture of Religion and Politics in the US still surprise (or shock) us.
Aren't the United States a secular state ? Haven't they been built on the separation of Church and state ?
Amen to that!
As an American, I can't tell you how much it pisses me off that ANY pastor is participating in an official government event. Regardless of whether the pastor is pro-gay or anti-gay, the Consitution specifically states that not only should the government NOT take preference to any religion (the first amendment), but that no religious test is required for an official (Article VI, Section 3). Having somebody spouting platitudes about god before the president takes the oath of office (his hand should be on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible) is deeply offensive to me as an American.
THIS should be what is causing people to be up in arms; that it's not is dispiriting.
Separation
Religion played a vital role in the establishment of the original colonies which were fouded in part by people seeking to escape religious persicution in England (and other parts of Europe). Animostiy and controversy along the lines of religion among the various colonies was common. As a matter of fact the reason we are "the United States" and not just "America" was an effort to maintain those differences that had developed between the colonies which formed the states. The separation of Church and State was intended to forbid a State sanctioned religion. Understaning the above you may gather why religion has never been far from the proceedings of government in the U.S.
That said, the only official act in the inauguration is the swearing-in which is conducted by the Supreme Court and I believe invokes God. It would take an act of congress to change the wording. The rest of the coronation is organized by a committee selected by the Senate who take instruction from the President Elect. The committee's focus, I would imagine, would be financial rather than trying to preserve any tradition or create a standard. So, if the president didn't want an invocation read, the committee would probably comply, but that type of omission would mark a president as anti-religious.
It is okay in America for an official to practice a religion, as a matter of fact few are elected to high office without that credential. And it is okay for that individual to draw on his religion for inspiration -even to the point of asking a bigoted pastor to bless him in front of millions of viewers on the most auspicious day of his career.
They were the persecutors, not the persecuted
Facts matter
"That however does not explain why HBO didn't introduce the Washington D.C. gay men's chorus (the ONLY act or backup chorus not named), nor why they failed to even identify them with a screen label."
I was at the concert and I watched it on HBO in the evening -- not a single one of the backup groups was identified. Let's be mad about the exclusion of Bishop Robinson, but let's not make up facts to increase our own feelings of victimhood. The Gay Men's Chorus was treated no differently than any other chorus there.
NOT TRUE
Apparently, Josh Groban mentioned it today on MSNBC...
Josh Groban on MSNBC Mentions Gay Men's Choir & Equality Fight
MSNBC: January 19, 2009
Josh Gorban Hits An Historical Note
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27721638/vp/28737768#28737768
Relevant part about Gays Excerpted (I left in his stamers and such)
Josh Groban: "And for that amazing moment, I mean seeing Marian Anderson sing that I mean it's inspiring to everybody, what she did and what she prooved by doing that. To be asked to sing with the amazing Heather Headly and um and quite pointedly, with the Gay Men's Choir as well who are, you know the gay and lesbian community are phenomenal and dealing with their own equality issues and, and a it was wonderful to see them and perform with them on stage as well. So, just a huge honor."
Tamryn Hall: Nice
If I find it on Youtube, I'll post it.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
Sorry
My guess is that Robinson was a "late" addition to the program (unlike what the Obama reported), hence the "preprogram" title and lag time. The playlist for this gig was decided a long time ago and the T.V. producers were quickly making plans for camera platforms and crew schedules. It takes a lot of planning for a live location shoot like this. When you're told that the gig starts at 1 pm, you plan your whole shoot around that moment when the cameras start rolling, from catering to duck tape wielding gaffers. To move that time back even a half hour at the last minute can be like moving a mountain because there are a million things that might go wrong. I gotta believe that HBO were simply going by the program that the Inauguration Committee handed them months ago.
This should come as no surprise. Democrats Voted for DOMA, even the "most Liberal" Congressman, Paul Wellstone. Democrats created Don't ask Don't tell which served as a method to get more gay soldiers discharged, especially women. That is the track record, Warren is the face of their hopes and dreams, not mine.
I won't be watching the inauguration. This is a party I clearly wasn't invited to. It is difficult to not invite someone to your party while inviting his enemy. Sometimes there's no gentle way to do it. I feel for the Obama in that regard. I mean you can invite him to cater, or arrange the flowers or play back up music, as long as you are able to keep him away from the guest of honor. But when it's this clear that I am not invited, I don't go. I don't get mad, I fell sorry for the sucker who may never know grace.
So then...
...we should focus our energies and anger on this and forget about the other issues that really matter?
I apologize if it seems I'm belitting your feelings. That's not my intention. It just doesn't seem like this prayer is anything to get that upset over when we have other more important issues.
David, the sad part about all this...
...is that it seems the American LGBT community has been reduced to scrambling for the table scraps as exemplified by these courtesy invites to "pre-shows" and "inclusive mentions" in Obama's speeches. But that's all gays have been given thus far by the incoming administration since they were denied the prize they really wanted - a policy-making, cabinet-level representative. Whether Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are represented at the inaugural festivities or not is probably of little importance to those communities because they've already secured THEIR places in the Obama administration, with more than one cabinet appointee each.
Btw, grousing about these "slights", whether intential or not, does not mean folks are forgetting about more substantive issues that affect the LGBT community. In any case, this is not as small a matter as you are implying. The prayer itself is not the issue but the perception of unequal treatment of those who are LGBT *is*.
RJ - Normally I agree
RJ - Normally I agree with what you say, but my perspective on this one is a bit different. In my view we APPEAR to be "reduced to scrambling for the table scraps" because we invest the things we're talking about with WAY more importance than they really have. The hysteria about the Robinson thing is virtually at the same level on AE as was the reaction to the passage of Prop 8! This is an invocation at a pre-inaugural event, and the invocation wasn't carried on TV. As I said on another thread, I am deeply disappointed in that, more so than in the upcoming Warren invocation. However, let's not be reduced to whining and moaning in a way that reduces us to martyrs or victims. Or as you put it, "scrambling for table scraps". We don't know exactly what happened, and more of the story will come out. But Obama personally wasn't involved, and it could turn out to be a complete mistake.
But whether it was a mistake or not, step back for a moment and really think about it. Is this as big a deal as people are making it out to be? Are we not demeaning ourselves by interpreting this as table scraps that we have to pathetically scramble for? Whether or not people are forgetting about more substantive issues, can't we put this in proper perspective? Sure, let's try to get to the bottom of it, but in the way that Michael Jensen is pursuing it, not with conjecture and whining and "woe are we" comments that diminish us more than raise us up.
Well, Sean, here's the thing...
Just like the general population, the LGBT community is comprised of people with a myriad of opinions. Some think this issue is entirely overblown while others consider this incident the gravest insult imaginable. Most are probably somewhere in the middle.
The reality of the situation is that the mainstream media won't mention it at all so it falls to the blogs to cover it. It's great that Michael Jensen and AfterElton.com are dealing with the controversy through official channels but it's also important that blog readers communicate their viewpoints, whatever they may be. A blog is only as influential as the size and activism of its readership.
Certainly, by complaining about this issue, the LGBT community risks being labeled whiners, yet by being quiet on the matter, LGBT folks risk being taken for granted when something much more important is on the table.
Is 'wait and see' always the best policy?
Your point about actually finding out what went on is well made and sensible. But it does raise other points. If this is just a case of bad organisation, it should be flagged up as a warning as to the new administration's abilities to organise things. That so many instances of 'bad organisaiton' or 'bad intelligence' (isn't one section of Mr Obama's team now saying that they hadn't known what the Rev Warren thought about gays and lesbians before they'd booked him in for the inauguration?) seem to have a gay tinge to them, suggests that the incoming administration has no knowledge of gay issues or has no particular momentum to learn about them.
Of course, the point you make about seeing what the man does is an essential part of any intelligent analysis of Obama. Against that, though, if there is no impetus to increase equality in the US, it's sensible for people to start getting their danders up now because there could be a long hard fight in the future and momentum will be essential to see it through to a successful conclusion.
Equally, there's the question of time. Already the US is lagging behind a lot of the West when it comes to gay and lesbian equality. What sort of time limit do you envisage in obtaining various equal rights. Equality in employment (including the military), is that a four or eight year project? Similarly, equality in partnership rights or 'hate crimes'. When should these things be obtained and how will one go about ensuring they're obtained? Is it just a case of accepting Obama at face value and trusting him to do the right thing, or will some work be required to ensure these things happen?
I suppose my point would be that in terms of equality, American gays and lesbians and the transgendered are victims. That's an inescapable fact. You're not the legal equal to your fellow citizens in the US and you're not the legal equal to your fellow gays and lesbians in much of the rest of the West (or Nepal for that matter, so you're lagging behind the Third World, too). Being a victim isn't wrong , it's just unfortunate. It's far more unfortunate if you decide to stay as a victim, though.
You're absolutely right about the Gene Robinson thing being a panic about symbolism. But when you've got such a long race to run, the symbols are important. Since Proposition 8 was passed, a new language of symbols, or perhaps a new mythology, is being written. From my reading of the situation on US boards, the debate seems to be phrased in pro/anti Democrat; pro/anti Clinton; pro/anti Obama; pro/anti Bush; pro/anti McCain; or even pro/anti black/white/Hispanic/Asian. If you step away from the parochial debate, though, it looks far more like the gay community is creating a shared national 'special interest' experience (even if they disagree what it means) to form the base from which a unified approach can be built.
The Warren/Robinson dichotomy is important. At the moment it's telling the gay community what it is and what it's not in terms of the incoming administration's priorities. When you describe the Robinson thing as 'scrambling for table scraps' it's a beautifully apt phrase because it suggests that others are being invited to a banquet [of inclusion and equality?]. But the only way you get to understand a banquet is going on to which you're not invited is when you compare the crumbs in your hand with the moist, soft, seed-bespattered, sweet butter bespread rolls in somone else's.
Not exactly the point, but...
I got a chance to listen to Gene Robinson's invocation, and I thought it pretty much sucked. Filled with a lot more references to tears and suffering than I like from my spiritual messages.
Maybe it's not so bad his prayer didn't get a wide audience...Rev. Robinson may have sex like me, but he doesn't speak for me spiritually.
The blog didn't die for our sins.
It must have been a different Bishop Robinson I was watching
It must have been a different Bishop Robinson I was watching on YouTube then. I thought his invocation was beautiful. Basically, he was asking God for blessings and guidance for Obama and the American people in general.
Not sure what you were listening to.
i am trying...
i am trying to figure out why HBO had the rights to the freaking concert. not everyone has HBO...and yes, i am one who doesn't. I didn't mind watching cnn, but ugh......wolf blitzer gets annoying after a while....
anyways, THAT is my complaint.
HBO free concert
Get ready for more....
Andrea Mitchell missed the story
I just watched Andrea Mitchell interview Gene Robinson on MSNBC and neither of them mentioned the fact that his prayer was not carried on HBO. She seemed to totally miss the story and he didn't bring it up either. That omission was even more amazing than watching HBO yesterday and not seeing his prayer!
Is there someone in the Obama camp who is sabotaging relations with the GLBT community, or is it Obama himself?
I just listened to Robinson
And Obama points back to HBO
AmericaBlog via TowleRoad
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/obama-wed-always-intended-for-hbo-to.html
Well, actually, it's
Well, actually, it's not Obama who's pointing back at HBO. It's his PIC team. I have a feeling that Obama has a few things on his plate right now, and probably has better things to do than micromanage the inauguration. But somehow this turned into Obama personally and intentionally dissing the entire LGBT community.
I'm extremely disappointed that Robinson was not in the broadcast. I'm FAR more disappointed in that than in the Warren invocation. But at the same time I feel an obligation to myself and to reality to be fair, and to see things for what they are.
You mean it's not the
Gee the sound was just fine for Bono and Beyonce
Maybe Bishop Robinson should go in for Tattoos and body piercing.
Yeah that's the ticket.
Deciding Not to Watch Live
I'm greatly disappointed in this slight. I'm sure Rick Warren will be heard loud and clear.
The GLBTQ voters turned out in massive numbers for Obama and so far he's 0-2.
Mike
http://cdbaby.com/cd/mikeandrews2