Submitted for your consideration:
- Why at all? The AP brief yesterday had the gist with “The bishop said his endorsement was as an individual, not as bishop. He said it would be inappropriate to speak about the campaign from the pulpit or at any church function, so he won’t do it. But he said as a private citizen, he will be at campaign events to help in any way he can.” Of course, that’s bovine feces. Saying that already belies his distance, but in a gentle, Episcopal sort of way.
- Why an anti-SSM candidate? Today’s Campaign Notebook in the Boston Globe had the inspiration for my lead. They quote him as, “At this moment we have no viable candidate who is where we would like them to be on these issues.” So Robinson seems to consider Obama the least stained of the sordid bunch on this.
For actual insight, it’s best to head to The Advocate, which featured a short, but powerful Q&A with Robinson. To the points in question, consider:
Critics point out that he doesn’t have an extensive voting record on LGBT issues as compared to some of the other candidates, so he’s a bit of an unknown?even though he supports most of our issues, except for marriage equality. Does that concern you at all?
All of the Democratic candidates are very good on these issues, and none of them is as good as they ought to be, and he falls into that category. He and I have talked about this personally and I have told him that I will be pushing him on gay marriage while at the same time being grateful of his support for civil unions. His particular journey, both personal and political, I don’t think has given him a lot of opportunities to have a track record, but what I can tell you is that the warmth, generosity, and enthusiasm with which he has welcomed me and the way he talks about LGBT issues makes me very comfortable with him.
My own questions would include, to Robinson, couldn’t you counsel him strongly to stop muddling civil rights and religious rites, and convince him to stand up for equality? To us all, do we trust good-hearted if a bit soft-headed types such as Robinson to sway any winning candidate after the election?
Cross-posted at Marry in Massachusetts.
First off I am a little confused by your attack on Mr. Robinson on the one hand you attack him endorsing anyone at all as a Bishop but on the other hand you attack him for not endorsing someone with a more pro equality stance.
<
p>
As for the Dems and Obama in particular, all of them support Civil Unions and none of them support marriage. This is likely due to equivocation on their part since gay marriage allegedly killed Kerry in OH and a few other states, I am sure most of them quiety sincerely believe in full equality. Kennedy similarly was endorsed by man civil rights activists but was timid on the issue so he would not lose the South, it took a strong leader like MLK to push him to proactive action.
<
p>
We live in a two party system, the GOP if given the choice would take all the rights accorded to gays away, while the Dems fall short of supporting full equality they are far better than the other party. Also Robinson could also be endorsing Obama based on social justice, war and peace, and economic issues, there is more to a candidate than his position on gay rights.
<
p>
Also just ten years ago the majority of Democrats voted for DOMA and we had a President (Clinton) who would refuse to talk about civil unions so progress is being made in our party, its not in theirs.
Kucinich and Gravel support real equality. Two presidential candidates out of eight, or 25% of dem candidates support marriage equality.
Why not just say, “support marriage,” or, “don’t support marriage.” I support marriage, for example, so I think gay people should be allowed to get married just like everyone else. People who don’t support marriage for gay people really don’t support marriage as much as they might, or as much as they should, it seems to me. Isn’t that clearer than using the phrase “marriage quality?” What do you think.
whatever term you think works best in a given situation, please do use. i agree with what you’re saying, but i do think that “marriage equality” is a very useful term. it heads off the “special rights for gays” mentality. it introduces and strengthens the concept that we are indeed working for equality, not special rights.
who is campaigning on status-quo inequality? are their sound bites backed up by voting records?
My guess is that V. Gene Robinson is the ultimate “make change from the inside” kind of person. AFter all, that is what he is doing with the Episcopal Church and Anglican Union. Perhaps he sees similar potential with Obama.
<
p>
No disrespect to Gene, who I do respect greatly, but who cares who he endorses? Perhaps he has been politically active in NH, but not being in NH, I only see him as a religious reformer. So for me his endorsement carries little weight.
<
p>
How is the Obama campaign reacting to the endorsement? Was it welcomed? Not all endorsements are appreciated. But I suppose they are eating it up. Here they have a very public gay advocate, a cleric no less, who apparently accepts incrementalism. Reminds me of the black guys Faux news trotts out whenever they want to attack affirmative action or other anti-discrimination measures.
I haven’t seen any comments from Obama’s folk, but you are likely right. They should like the reflected praise.
<
p>
In response to the comment above yours, it matters whom he endorses, if anyone, because he has a high profile as an openly out bishop. By reference, you’d suppose that GLBT folk should support Obama for his limited support.
<
p>
I still find it ironic that only Dennis Kucinich, whom no one seems to give much of a shot, has strong gay-friendly positions. This is supposed to be the campaign where Dems clearly differentiate themselves, eh?
I feel I’m playing sexual orientation chess rather than talking about a person.
if he wasn’t “the gay bishop”, advocating for some level of inclusion and/or equality? afaik, it is only his fact of being gay coupled with his wanting it not to be a factor in his employment and citizenship that makes him noteworthy outside of his parish. also “a bishop who happens to be gay” is unwieldy and gets shorthanded down to “gay bishop”.
You’re right about there being so few bishops of any kind who are gay and about his gayness making him newsworthy. It’s somewhat reflective of a sort of tokenism that he can be uniquely identified in that manner.
<
p>
However, it probably doesn’t help Bishop Robinson do his job if his name keeps disappearing behind his sexual orientation.
i have no doubt that when he agreed to be consecrated bishop, he knew this would put him in the spotlight/cross-hairs as a gay man. and as for this designation as “gay bishop” interfering with his job, i would venture to say that this is his job. not all pastoring has to do with getting people baptized and on the church rolls. that’s megachurchthink! some clergy (too few, in my opinion) actually work to improve people’s lives.
<
p>
here’s a back atcha: would you have opined MLK3’s identity as a “black man” and his resultant work in civil rights getting in the way of his job as minister of ebenezer baptist? certainly not, because ultimately his job was the fostering and furthering of human dignity.
Martin Luther King’s racial identity was clearly part of his work, but his name never disappeared behind his race. Rev. King never became “The Black Reverend”.
<
p>
I confess I don’t pay much attention to affairs Episcopal, but last time I heard Bishop Robinson speak, it sounded to me as if he saw the bishop part of his role as rather big. That whole Christian thing, you know. If one is going to excel at bishoping, it may not help you to have attention always drawn to one part of your identity.
<
p>
That aside, isn’t he well enough known that we don’t have to remind everyone who he is? Wouldn’t that be a tad bit more respectable? What do you think, Lesbian Scientist?
<
p>
(I’m hoping you find that more humorous than ad hominem or ad mulierem (sp?))
As I stated above, many clergy, like (I gather) King and the Pope and Robinson, see their Christian mission (or business…that’s for raj đŸ˜‰ as something bigger than narrowly interpreting bible versus on sunday morning. Social Justice was clearly part of King’s role as a Christian leader. You’re right, it may not help Robinson in certain aspects of his work to be known as The Gay Bishop. But that is the trade-off he obviously was willing to make to advance social justice for everyone. They tell me that Jesus was into social justice, you know, so doing this kind of stuff is very Christian. To those in Robinson’s parish who know him personally, I’d bet that he is known just Father Gene.
<
p>
Is he well enough known that we can drop the “gay”? I don’t know! I can’t answer that. Ask folks waiting for the bus or cruising the Costco isles, see what they say.
<
p>
Of course I want to be known for my words and deeds, not for my sexual orientation. That is what you’re getting at with your non-ad hom non-attack. In general it would not be appropriate to refer to me as The Lesbian Scientist. The reason is that I don’t need to publicly address my sexual orientation in the course of my work. If, however, I was denied promotion or whatever because I’m gay, and became a public figure as The First Lesbian Allowed to be a Scientist, then sure, I could see how I’d be called The Lesbian Scientist. Would I like that? I’m sure I’d have mixed feelings about it. However, I would expect it. As soon as the Episcopalians loosen up about out gay clergy and Gene is no longer the only one, the title will begin slipping. He’ll then be know not as The Gay Bisop, but as The First Gay Bishop. đŸ™‚
thank you
<
p>
NO, at least in the sense of just uttering his name doesn’t result in the connection with “Episcopalian”, “bishop,” or “gay” for most people.
How does this conflict with the Anglican Church’s tax-exempt status? If clerics from any church are going to start running around publicly endorsing political candidates, they should lose that status immediately.
the dozens of ministers who stump for every Republican who promises to keep down the gays.
sadly, it is not the reserve of repub clergy to play kick the queers in the political system. just be clear on that. there are plenty of non-repub clergy that qualify as opportunists, or worse, haters.
… since he’s acting as an individual, not a church official. If he really does keep it out of the pulpit, it’s probably OK.
<
p>
afaik, any individual in the US may state their personal politics, even if they are members of a 501c3. the only prohibition is endorsing specific candidates from the pulpit &/or director’s office.
Can a large organization such as the Anglican/Episcopalian or Catholic Church can maintain sustained campaigns against an individual or party without repercussions?
maybe some lawyerly types will chime in here, but after the last election i remember numerous ministers being brought up on charges of advocating for specific candidates. they did so not by name, but by essentially going down the bush plank and then saying “all good christians will vote for the fella who stands by these positions”. is that a fair dodge of the letter of the law? it all depends on the judge you get, doesn;’t it? iric, some of these guys got their hands slapped, some didn’t. but i can’t remember which got what ruling.
<
p>
as for advocating against a candidate or party rather than endorsing a candidate, i have no idea if that is legit. like the guy above, you would probably couch it in terms of a set of beliefs, wink, and know that your congregation got the message.
…who advocate for lower class size.
<
p>
By and large, Laurel, I personally think it’s OK for ministers – OUTSIDE the pulpit – to advocate for ISSUES, but not INDIVIDUALS. Which raises my eyebrows a little at a outright endorsement by Rev. Robinson. But. Each denomination has its own rules of conduct, and I’m sure he is acting within those of the Episcopalians.
First of all, teacher’s unions aren’t tax-exempt. But nice try.
<
p>
I don’t really care about a denomination’s “rules”…I care that religious organizations have laws to abide by in order to avoid paying their share into our society, and Bishop Robinson is quite clearly breaking those rules.
with you’re assertion that Robinson is breaking laws. As long as he speaks as an individual, he is perfectly within the law. See my UCC link below. Should people holding executive positions in non-profits have to forgo their 1st Amendment rights as individuals?
<
p>
Teacher’s unions ARE tax exempt: 501(c)(5). But nice try.
I’m not accustomed to Republicans getting anything right about the bad bad BAD teacher’s unions. Mea culpa.
your views are appreciated. however, i am concerned with the law as it stands, not with opinion. now, if your opinion is strong enough that you advocate amending the law, i’m all ears. not that i’d necessarily agree with your opininion…
I know, Robinson is Episcopal, not UCC. However, the same laws apply. Here is the UCC Guidelines for Congregation and Clergy on Political Action.
<
p>
So my eyebrows weren’t misplaced after all. He’s dancing with the law with his ‘individual’ assertion, but perhaps he should speak about issues in the future….
that very same document says this
Robinson stated quite clearly that he was endorsing Obama as a private citizen (see MassMarrier’s links above). If he’s “dancing with the law”, he’s in perfect rhythm with it.
Why does anyone care about Gene Robinson’s opinion? Because he is an Anglican bishop. While it may be technically true that someone can say “I’m not saying this as a bishop, even though you’re only listening because I’m a bishop” I find it disquieting at best. Perhaps this dodge doesn’t affect tax-exempt status, but it’s still a dodge.
True, people might only be interested in his opinion because he is an anglican bishop. Or, perhaps, they might be interested because he is a pioneer for social justice within his profession and within a very powerful organization. could that ever be possible?
Indicates that you’re looking for agreement, not debate. As I cannot offer the first, I will no longer pursue the second.
i was not trying to kill debate. sorry if it read that way. well, shall we bid each other a fine weekend and pick it up again another time?
The article you linked quotes Robinson on his reasons for endorsing Obama:
<
p>
The Boston Globe’s online local news section provided other quotes that further illuminate the reasons for Robinson’s support for Obama:
<
p>
The Chicago Sun Times online had this:
<
p>
The good bishop simply appears to find Obama the best candidate considering a broader set of issues of concern to him.
so my assumption up top that he wants to reform from within seems to be on track. i give him a ton of credit for doing that. it is a difficult route to take – not all of us are up to it.
<
p>
thanks for the illuminating summary of articles.
I’ve been away and was not aware of chatter. Thanks to Laurel for carrying the load on this. She and I disagree about the change from within aspect, although we agree on a lot of other things often.
<
p>
I sincerely believe that this is not the time nor the circumstances for picking the least offensive of choices. The front running Dems should be showing some guts and leadership on this. They are all wrong and cowardly. I can’t believe if any of those I-want-equality-but-put-my-personal-religious-DOMA-views-first candidates gets in that he or she will have an epiphany once in office. They are much more likely to think that playing to the appeasers was the right way to get elected and to stay in office.
<
p>
Piffle.
Maybe now is a good time to resuscitate one of my very first BMG diaries, called How POTUS Candidates should handle the Marriage Q
On the general note, if a pastor makes use of church property to proselytize on behalf of a particular candidate, then it may lose its tax-exempt status under federal income tax law. On the other hand, if someone who happens to be a pastor (or bishop) proselytizes on behalf of a particular candidate in the public square, the church will not lose its tax-exempt status. It really is as simple as that. So, if Robinson was not using church property to preach on behalf of Obama, there is no issue regarding the tax exemption under federal income tax law.
<
p>
Regarding Teacher’s unions ARE tax exempt: 501(c)(5). But nice try.
<
p>
Not exactly, They are free of federal income tax, as a “communal” organization. (I would have difficulty coming up with a model by which their income would be taxed, since communal organizations–such as corporations–are taxed on their profits, not their revenue). But, I suspect that the property that they lease is taxed–property tax, you know. Unlike property owned by religious organizations or private colleges.
<
p>
Regarding Why does anyone care about Gene Robinson’s opinion? Because he is an Anglican bishop. Um maybe. But why does anyone care about Tom Cruise’s opinion, or Alex Baldwin’s? Because they, like Robinson, are celebrities. Why anyone would care about a celebrity’s opinion about anything is beyond me, but, I hate to tell you, that’s the way it is in the USofA.
<
p>
I have emphasized the federal income tax aspect of this for a reason. There is no reason for church or university property to be free of local or state property tax, merely by piggy-backing on the federal income tax exemption, which states and localities usually do.
[6 notwithstanding].
<
p>
Non-profit groups are working for a common good. Universities are providing the local area with advanced education, research on local problems, and in the case of land-grant unis, specific outreach and help on local issues. Churches provide all kinds of community services, as well as often provide public space for events accessible by the community at large.
<
p>
These kinds of groups provide all kinds of benefits to the local community. Think of it as in in kind payment of taxes, rewarding the agencies for their positive externalities and positive community interaction.
some churches provide benefits to their communities. many, actually, do not do anything beyond serving themselves. perhaps there should be 2 tax tiers for church non-profits: one for those that do non-religious community work (they get the current tax breaks), and one for those that don’t (they’re on the hook).