 by snicks
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 23 members and 865 guests online.
|
Gay Bishop Gene Robinson to help kick off Inauguration week
Gay Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson will play a major role in the kick-off to Barack Obama's inauguration. Robinson (who figured prominently in the excellent documentary For The Bible Tells Me So) will deliver the invocation at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday, January 18 (which will be attended by the President-elect), and in a weekend e-mail had a special message for his supporters:
“I am humbled and overjoyed at this invitation, and it will be my great honor to be there representing the Episcopal Church, the people of New Hampshire, and all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."
I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders if this has something to do with the whole Rick Warren debacle, but according to the article, officials insist that this decision was made before the Warren fiasco. If that's true, then why wasn't it announced earlier, when it may have helped diffuse the situation? Or maybe it wouldn't have helped anyway? Does this news affect your feelings about the Warren invitation, or is it too little, too late? Submitted by on Mon, 2009-01-12 16:24. |
 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
yeah, okay...sure
the decision was made before the warren stuff, eh? SUUUUUURE. love how they tell us this NOW....*after* the controversy. we must all be idiots.
I'm still baffled at the decision to have Rick Warren, but as i said before...Obama most likely won't change the decision (probably a smart thing to do) to have rick warren there....so all i can do is sigh in annoyance and hope he won't make a stupid decision like this again.
Tempted
Gene Robinson
Just CYA.....
Who the heck cares if the
Who the heck cares if the decision was made before or after the Warren controversy??? The fact remains that an openly gay Christian bishop will give an invocation at an important inaugural event. That's a wonderfully inclusive and symbolic act. Can't we all rejoice in a good thing once in awhile?
If this is government in its truest form, then I say let's have more of it. The "people" speak and protest and enlighten their representatives, and then the representatives listen and act in response. That's how government SHOULD work.
Agreed
Thankyou for saying this. It is what government is supposed to do. Sometimes it seems people think the government shouldnt make mistakes, but they do, and what matters is if they make up for it and prevent it from happening again. Of course a lot of times they dont prevent things, but in this case they are listening to people.
A homo is giving the opening ceremony speech, and a homophobe is giving a speech at the swearing it. What matters is that Pres. Obama doesnt ignore the LGBT community. I wont stop him from having a homophobe give a speech unless he preaches his homophobia.
If you invite a cannibal to
If you invite a cannibal to a dinner party, inviting a vegetarian so as to counter the effects of the cannibal won't do all that much good. The cannibal is going to eat the vegetarian.
I don't care when the choice was made. Choosing Rick Warren was a slap in the face to the gay community. Nothing short of a cancellation of Rick Warren would remedy this extreme error and that is not going to happen. This man will be given a voice as MILLIONS of people watch. It's scary and truly makes me want to cry.
Yes. It's great that we have a gay bishop as part of the ceremonies but I'd much rather make this inauguration a secular ceremony, devoid of all the trappings of proselytizing and Jesus.
I object strongly to the notion that this is government in its truest form. To me, it's more like a perverted form of yin and yang.
If Rick Warren is still
Well, of course something's
Well, of course something's changed. You can say that it's not enough, or you can say it doesn't make up for Warren's appearance, but you can't say that nothing's changed.
Rick Warren's just a symbol, albeit a negative symbol from a gay perspective. But Gene Robinson is a stronger positive symbol than Warren is a negative symbol. I say that because Warren is symbolic of so many things in addition to his homophobia. He's a symbol of evangelicalism, Christianity in general, conservative political thought, the "modernization" of evangelicalism in many ways, etc. From Obama's perspective his inclusion is the symbol of bi-partisanship and of reaching out to those who disagree with the more liberal worldview that Obama represents. Warren is also a symbol of homophobia, but as despicable as that is it's only a small part of what he represents.
The inclusion of Gene Robinson, on the other hand, is a direct, explicit affirmation of inclusion, especially LGBT inclusion.
None of this is in ANY way a defense of Rick Warren. But it's a suggestion that we put the two appearances in their proper perspective. The inclusion of Robinson says far more of a positive nature than the inclusion of Rick Warren says of a negative nature. The Warren thing is not going to be reversed. We can either fixate on that, or rejoice in Robinson's inclusion. I choose to do the latter.
Sorry but same old..
Same old.
Obama doesn't represent a liberal world view, anything but. Yes, he certainly nodded to the left in order to get elected, just as Republicans play up the right to get elected. Obama is clear and well to the right of center.
Warren represents a softer gentler kind of gay oppression and bigotry. An oppression none the less. If Warren, and the evangelicalism he represents, could have his way all gay people would be shipped off to camps to be stuck with cattle prods, given electric shock or what ever it takes to cure them. And we would have no rights to anything, ever. And yes, that brave new world that Warren would create with No gay people, or gay people who are shell shocked and stupefied, terrified or dead, THAT world would have heathy forests, clean rivers and millions of grateful converts in Africa.
The Sunday benidiction of Gene Robinson is the same as the bigoted line, "some of my friends are gay, the man who cuts my hair is gay." The Warren decision is not going to be reversed because Obama isn't really reaching that far when he holds his hand out to Warren. Obama and Warren are more closely aligned than Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party (by Democratic Party I mean card carrying Democrats, NOT Green Party members who are even further left.)
You can either believe that Obama is a knight in shinning armor who can do no wrong and, very much like God, has a grand design for all of his children or you can see Obama as a typical politician who's true colors don't come out until after he is elected, which usually means turning his back on the GLBT community. I choose to live in reality.
He is Liberal
Obama is of course liberal. Hes smart too. Which means he isnt going to suddenly turn this country in to a far left nation. He understands that sudden change can sometimes cause a negative effect, that a gradual change can be better for people to adapt too. Hes also the President and has to listen to the whole nation and keep an open mind.
The reason I say he's liberal is because of his past, especially college. Professors and friends alike say he was one of the most liberal of peers.
Most do
Obama's positions are to the right of center, that means he is not a liberal. But compared to the Bush's everybody looks like a liberal today, so I can see how people would assume Obama is a liberal. I don't know myself if turning this country into a far left nation is such a bad idea after 8 years of being a far right nation, the pendulum should swing the same distance to the far left to balance things.
I can think of no 'liberal' official who has pissed of the left wing of his constituents so quickly after being elected. I was hoping that Obama would surprise us. Sometimes the job itself shapes the man and Obama could actually start to lean left. After his cabinet posts and this, I'm not holding my breath -but be my guest.
A few facts
OK, here are a few facts:
1. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gave Obama a 75% rating in 2007. However, that was only because he missed 5 of the 20 votes on which they based their ratings. Obama voted the ADA way on all 15 votes he cast. (ADA is one of the more liberal groups out there.)
2. ADA gave Obama a 95% rating in 2006.
3. The ACLU gave Obama a rating of 88% for 2007.
4. NARAL gave Obama a 100% rating for 2007.
5. The Service Employees Intl. Union (SEIU) gave Obama a 90% rating for 2007.
6. The League of Conservation Voters gave Obama a 95 in 2005, 100 in 2006, and a lifetime mark of 96, higher than any other candidate running for President in this election cycle. They also endorsed Obama for President.
7. On the other side, the National Review ranked Obama the most liberal senator in 2007, where they say he voted liberal for 65 of 66 votes. They ranked him the 10th most liberal senator in 2006.
OK, now why are you saying Obama is "well right of center"?
I don't like
Which means, I presume,
Which means, I presume, that you're not fond of those pesky facts. They do get in the way of things when you'd rather just make blanket statements and not back them up with anything.
Well, it's after 11:00 here and I have to work tomorrow, so I'm out. I've enjoyed dominating you on multiple threads this evening! Remember, facts are our friends. :)
Cute
If you think the ADA rating is flawed, why mention it? It is very likely that if Obama would have cast all 20 votes he still would have gained a 75%. Politicians often abstain from casing votes that might make them look bad. A none vote is the exact same thing as a No in the Senate. You are paid to be there and vote. If the particular vote is important then you will be there. The fact that the ADA chose those particular votes, means they were important. In fact the statistic you site shows that Obama has a low rating with the ADA. He should have gotten 100% if their "Liberal" concerns were of the utmost importance to him. But they weren't.
I have already talked about the National Review below, why are we holding two separate discussions on the same thread?
Nukely, I'm seriously
Nukely, I'm seriously beginning to think you've been punking all of us. Or are some sort of plant. Or if not either of those things, then you have a very regrettable aversion to facts. Obama is "well to the right of center"???? Is that why multiple ratings organizations ranked him as the most liberal senator or nearly the most liberal? Seriously, if he is well to the right of center, then there are no liberals in the U.S. Senate.
And you can't be serious when you say Rick Warren would send gay people to camps if he could and electro-shock them. And take away all rights, leaving all gay people "terrified or dead". You really believe that???? There is LITERALLY no reason to believe that, and nothing you can point to where he implies in even a slight way anything of the kind.
So tell us: which organization put you up to this?
Painting the kettle?
Funny you accuse me of being a plant because I've said that about your ding-battery.
The most liberal senator? Do you have any idea what that title means? The Senate is one of the most conservative bodies of government in the nation. As such, yes, most everyone in the US is more Liberal. If we were talking about a parliament, which better represents the National positions and views, then a ranking like that would better represent the nation As it is the Senate does not have a Green Party member, for instance. As it is being a Liberal Senator does not make you a Liberal liberal, or a Liberal anything. Clinton ranked as 16th most liberal in the Senate and she voted for the war.
Obama's ranking occurred once, at the point when he missed a mess of votes because he was campaigning, if he had been able to vote every time that year he would never have earned that one particular ranking. Even the people who gave the ranking admit it is misleading and wrong, but, as you noted, the dumb fact has been reported all over, over and over again, until everybody sees it as truth. McCain ranked at 59th most conservative, with 100 senators that would put MaCain in the middle -but actually "Left of Center" or on the liberal side, if you draw a line down the middle using that same ranking system then even MaCain would be "Liberal."
The Evangelicals believe being gay is a choice and that we can be 'repaired' through therapy, namely Aversion Therapy which involves having the subject look at erotic photos of men while being given an electric shock. The obvious deduction of this "world view" it that if these people were given political domination they would exercise their Reparative Work on everyone as quickly as the Final Solution.
I note that you don't cite
I note that you don't cite any sources for the numbers you give. Please see my extensive list of ratings in my post above. It doesn't work to say the senate isn't liberal. The groups making the ratings I cite above have determined whether particular votes are liberal or conservative.
And on what do you base the comment that the senate is one of the most conservative bodies in the country? You can't just pull it out of your head and call it a fact. No, the senate doesn't have a Green Party member, but the Green Party has the allegiance of somewhere around 1% of the American public. So the lack of Green Party members means absolutely nothing. The party received 0.28% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election! That's right: 0.28% of the vote.
You're trying to set the definition of "liberal" on the basis of your extreme far left viewpoints. Unfortunately, for any discussion of liberal vs. conservative to have any meaning you don't get to set the definition. I'll take the ADA or ACLU or NARAL or LCV definitions. You can have your choice. By all those measures Obama is on the very liberal side of things.
And by the way, plants and trolls and punkers don't make a point to use facts in their arguments as I do, and they don't make efforts to see both sides of issues and to try to be fair minded. Rather, they say outrageous things, or make up facts, or try to stir up trouble.
Looks cheesy
You make the statement that Obama was "ranked ... as the most liberal senator" but when I call you on it you go back above my post, insert a bunch of facts, and then jump down a few posts and make it look like you cited your sources before I made my critique. And here I thought the expert had taught me everything I could know about debate.
You made a statement with unsubstantiated facts: Obama was "ranked ... as the most liberal senator" where did you draw that exact statement from? Above you quote the approval rating of a Union. I have worked for the SEIU, they give their rankings only on Union issues, often those rankings are in response to a set of questions and have nothing to do with Senate voting records. So unless you site the exact source for that particular ranking given by the SEIU, the 'fact' is useless, and is not a ranking for liberal but for union issues. These rankings are usually in reference to how many specific questions are answered in complience with the union. It is not uncommon for a "liberal demomcrat" and a "right wing Republican" to answer these questions and each recieve high ratings only a few points form each other, espically since the questions are asked during a campaign season.
Also many of these rankings reflect the Senate, not the population as a whole. I have no doubt that Obama is liberal for the Senate, I am saying for the nation as a whole he is not. To be a Liberal Senator is a whole different animal than being a Liberal citizan. If you are unawair of the fact that the Senators are conservitive as a rule, you need to go back to school. You might be interested to know that Judges tend to be sober, or do you need some useless stats to prove it?
Since you referenced it, The National Journal's editor lamented the misuse of their statistics even as far back as when Kerry's ranking was used against him, "... we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. (It's) Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings ... is sometimes misleading - or just plain wrong."
I am tying Liberal to the entire range of our political leanings, not just people who voted this year or last or who they voted for. It is a fact that many folks who voted for Obama this last election voted Republican in the previous two. Using your reasoning, that would be proof that Obama is a staunch right winger.
I agree that his homophobia
I agree that his homophobia is "a small part of what he represents" but don't you think that the influence he has in that "small part" is far reaching and damaging? I don't have a problem with bipartisanship, but couldn't Obama have chosen a better man for the job, or at least one less polarizing? Are their any prominent evangelicals out there who don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia and incest? He chose a man who vilifies an entire population of people. Giving such a man a voice in such a huge venue could be very damaging and I don't know if the "explicit affirmation of inclusion" will do more good than an explicit affirmation of exclusion that Rick Warren supports via his stance on homosexuality. I realize that the world is bigger and need address many more issues than gay ones, but I can't help but take a little offense to this choice on a day when we're supposed to celebrate a new nation.
I appreciate your more moderate stance. And I do celebrate the inclusion of Robinson in the ceremonies but I still can't help being a little apprehensive.
I think we should remain apprehensive
Staying on the ball
It's notable that Fred Hochberg was just appointed head of the Import-Export Bank and John Berry was just named to the post of Director of the Office of Personnel Management. While neither post is Cabinet, both are still fairly significant. I strongly suspect that some degree of appeasement is involved.
No matter what the transition office is saying, I think the noise we raised did send a message to Obama. Which is good. We need to be assertive, just as other minority communities are being.
I am prepared to support Obama, as I did during the election, so long as I feel that he recognizes our community. He will probably not be able to give us all the things we want, but there are limits to even the President's power. But we do need to make it clear that we are not going to be a silent group of supporters. Politics is a game of strength and determination.
actually...
Actually,
I read a certain gay Belgian news site and I seem to recall reading the news about Gene Robinson before reading about the Warren debacle. Is it possible the robinson news wasn't reported properly in the states at the moment it happened?
Big deal
Inauguration Day is on January 20, unless the 20th falls on a Sunday then the actual swearing in occurs on the Saturday before or Monday after. The fact that the president elect goes to church the Sunday before (in this case 2 days before the inauguration) and receives a blessing, or what ever, has never played into the actual inagurtion. It's up to the president himself and has absolutely nothing to do with the inauguration.
The only reason it is an issue in the news right now is to underscore the fact that gay people, and gay clergy, do not deserve a place on the same stage with Obama as our most ardent enemies. We will continue to be allowed to cater dinners, arrange flowers, design ball gowns and perform the background music -and in this case, offer minor benedictions. No doubt since the Warren flap, the Obama is trying to mitigate Warren's bigotry by playing up this minor event.
Read the article
The gay bishop is giving the invocation speech, which will be at the Lincoln Memorial. He will be going to the National Cathedral (Episcopalian) on Wednesday where a sermon will be given by Sharon Watkins of the sometimes liberal Disciples of Christ. In concern to the one-day vs. three days; they have been for a while more than one day, filled with balls and minor ceremonies that the President attends. The reason January 20th is Inauguration day is because its the actual swearing in day when the president-elect becomes the President and is given his authority.
I Don't Care. . .
. . .if Obama brings Heath Ledger back from the dead. . .
. . .the horse done rode out of the barn, my boys. . .
. . .too little, too late!
That doesn't make any
Gene Robinson
Robinson
does seem like a last minute addition, if so I agree that it shows a step in the right direction. Perhaps that's the best we should expect. If this had been planned all along it begs the question of why he and Warren weren't switching posts in the first place? Warren's opposition may have been calculated and the Robinson event created to avert "resentment" as you call it.
I still call it fear.