HBO has given a statement to the effect that it was the Presidential Inaugural Committee that made the determination that NH Bishop Gene Robinson’s invocation would not be part of the televised portion of yesterday’s “We Are One” event on the Lincoln Memorial. From AfterElton.com, via Pam’s House Blend (HT Ryan):
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.
There have apparently been no further statements either from HBO or from the Inaugural Committee, who presumably would like this whole thing to go away.
Look, Obama screwed up by inviting Rick Warren to do the inauguration. Inviting Robinson to Sunday’s event was a good save attempt, but then he screwed up again by making his appearance after Robinson was done, thereby guaranteeing that no one would see Robinson. Is any of this the biggest deal in the world? No. It’s symbolic, and (as Obama surely understands) symbolism matters, but results matter more. Still, it’s a shame that, having gotten both the symbolism and the execution just about pitch-perfect on every other aspect of his transition, Obama keeps booting this one.
Where else are GLBT voters going to go? To the Republicans? On the other hand, evangelicals confronted by economic stresses and, as some assert, incompatibilities between the ideology of the current Republican Party and crucial elements of Christian morality, may well turn to the Democrats.
<
p>I think this is calculated, practical politics.
<
p>I don’t like it, incidentally, but that’s a separate issue.
deserves to be read by as many people as possible.
I think, for the most part, people are going to stay on the team they are on now after this. The GLBT voters don’t have anywhere else to go, and collectivly they aren’t a big enough bloc to go against the dem establishment, and evangelicals got an earful of the “THIS IS WHY YOU SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE AND SHOULDN’T EVEN HAVE AN INVOCATION!” from the left, which upsets them. Juxtapose that with Obama probably pushing for FOCA within his 100 days, and you’ll see very few from the evangelical community going democrat.
<
p>I get the intention and how this looks like it can be a caluclated move, but when the dust settles, all you’re going to have is a bunch of pissed off gay people.
In my mind an invocation is not pre-show, it is the first agenda item for the main event. The event is political, so CSPAN should have just covered it “gavel-to-gavel” as the saying goes rather than contract it to HBO. I would love to hear the rationale from the planners or Obama himself on this. Is he THAT afraid that a few extremists won’t like seeing a gay Bishop taking a couple minutes to pray. Anyone of that extreme persuasion didn’t vote for him this time and won’t next time anyway.
the fact that you think it’s practical.
<
p>the beast has been awoken. The glbt crowd and its allies are a powerful constituency. Obama will regret pissing us off.
in the dance of the Democratic party and the glbt community that we’ve seen before.
<
p>I don’t see why Democrats don’t do a better job of dancing with the ones that brung ’em. Like a lot of other members of the glbt community, I worked my butt off for this candidate, yet before the inauguration, even, he’s already driven the bus over us.
<
p>I wasn’t going to be mollified by a Gene Robinson appearance at a sub-event in any case. I think it’s a damn shame that America didn’t get a chance to see that the good bishop doesn’t have two heads or horns and can give a good prayer, but the only thing that’s going to make the Rick Warren insult go away for me is for Obama to perform on the issues that matter:
<
p>1) Repeal of the DOMA provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits
2) Ability of gays and lesbians to sponsor partners from outside the U.S. for citizenship
3) Ending DADT. We should have the same rights to serve in our country’s military as straight people
4) Passing ENDA – we should not face discrimination on the job because of sexual orientation
5) Hate crimes legislation with teeth
<
p>It’s time for Obama to put up or shut up about being a friend to the glbt community.
The president-elect won. He does not need the votes of all the splinters of all the planks of the democratic party. Sorry LGBTers, he doesn’t need your votes anymore. We will recall he was never an outright supporter of your movement. I would think if an effort was made to grow and strengthen the Green-Rainbow party, it wouldn’t be too hard to become the no. 2 party in MA.
but if he doesn’t deliver on a substantial civil rights package for LGBT citizens, he will never have our votes or support again. And we’ll bring A LOT of straight allies with us.
<
p>Someone above said, to the effect, “they’ll stay dem because they have nowhere else to go”. I disagree. We’re not mandated to cast ballots at all. Therefore, we can just stay home on election day. My ballot will remain blank in the Congressional section too, if the members of congress don’t insure that obama has solid civil rights legislation to sign. It isn’t enough anymore to have your heart in the right place if you don’t follow it. If we lose, you lose. No more queer support for any federal elected official if we don’t see some real results soon. ENDA, DOMA, DADT, UAFA, Shepard Act. No more dicking around.
because in 2012, you might be forced to choose between voting your consious against Barack, or for him if he faces a Republican who is very anti-glbt and there’s a chance that person will win if Barack doesn’t have your votes — something to the tune of vote for Barack for the status quo or stay home and it gets worse.
<
p>Hopefully you won’t have to make such a choice, twofold. One, that he does push laws for equal protection and that the next Republican candidate at best doesn’t have an anti glbt agenda. Here’s one department where I think Mitt would resonate as a Republican who talks it up but wouldn’t be an impetus on gays once he was elected, kinda the opposite of Obama.
i’d rather teach the dems a lesson on the way. if my choice is between a dem bigot and a republican bigot, my ballot will remain blank.
calling obama a “dem bigot” is just not accomplishing anything
obama has a chance to do the right thing, but he needs to move immediately if he cares to outrun a label he is earning for himself. i’m looking forward to obama making me eat crow in the first 100 days.
<
p>”justice delayed is justice denied.”
i see the if.
<
p>13 hours till Bush is gone, that’s pretty sweet.
Bush countdown created by James Miller
A federal constitutional ban on gay marriage is equal to not repealing DADT?
<
p>Gay rights isn’t all or nothing. There are loads of shades of gray, and while you and I both agree that gays should have fully equal rights, surely you see that gays are better off right now in terms of rights than they were 10 years ago. So the question is, which is better: status quo or regressing 10 years?
<
p>The GOP wants to regress on gay rights. You want to be screwed, or you want to be devastatingly screwed?
so that i will not be presented with this question in 4 years.
For example, in my town, there was an effort to get our state representative to vote the right way on marriage equality. The bulk of the effort that went into that and the leadership of that effort was as heterosexual as can be.
<
p>So it is not the case that the constituency for gay rights is exclusively LGBT. Many progressives regard it as pretty central.
that Obama was “never an outright supporter of your movement.” is completely untrue. Obama courted the LGBT vote throughout his campaign and supports MOST of the goals the LGBT community is fighting for.
<
p>In a open letter to the LGBT community Obama stated that he supports REPEALING DOMA, PASSING ENDA, REPEALING DADT, PASSING HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION, and FIGHTING HIV/AIDS.
<
p>He currently states that he doesn’t support marriage equality, but it was just discovered that he has supported marriage equality in the past. No surprise here. I have always thought that a man as smart and progressive as Obama must support equal rights for LGBT people. He felt that he had to deny his support for equal marriage to win the presidency. That may have been so, I am not sure. But I guarantee that either toward the end of this term, or at the start of his second term, he will come out in favor of marriage equality.
<
p>
Exhibit A:
<
p>
I think the integrity of the commitments Obama made to the LGBT community when he really did want our votes is in question. He did nothing to lay that question to rest when he dissed Gene Robinson with a media-closeted appearance at the Lincoln Memorial. Obama has frankly given critics of gay rights ammunition for their inevitable taunts by the mixed messages he sends.
and those of us who do battle with the bigots on a daily basis understand that QED applies to their side of the debate when they quote Obama in action and rhetoric.
<
p>All in all the conversation and dialogue that is erupting due to those toeing the line of equality instead of showing the leadership of conviction to what is right WILL get us there eventually. Better the conversation than none at all.
<
p>LGBT will be Americans some day. Until then I am an American in waiting.
which is what one Massachusetts Legislator said back in 2004 which is funny I know, but is what Obama believes when he equivocates.
<
p>
. . . and we all live here together!
<
p>
1st, it’s actually worse than it seems. Not only was Robinson’s invocation not covered on HBO, but the speakers for the crowd beyond the immediate stage were ‘mysteriously’ not working during his speech and just as mysteriously fixed immediately after it.
<
p>2nd, the gay vote is often the difference in any close election, especially primaries, where 3/4s of our population come out in presidential years – probably 50% more than rank and file democratic voters. With many elections decided by 5% or less, does anyone realistically think losing gay votes and gay support won’t swing a great many democrats? If I don’t see a HUGE change in tenor and action by the Obama administration, I won’t volunteer in 2012, I won’t donate money and I’ll leave the ballot blank.
<
p>I will not be erased. I will not be resigned.
but think you’re overestimating the mathematical impact of your vote in a presidential election, especially since it’s unlikely that a gay Democrat bloc would start voting Republican; staying home or blanking the ballot has half the impact of swinging the other way.
<
p>I think the greater danger for Democrats is losing boots on the ground and donations. I’d bet (though I have no data) that gays donate money to Democratic candidates at higher rates and, at least when they feel they’re supporting an explicitly gay friendly candidate work harder than “generic American”.
I would think that as the most true BLUE in the party you would have realized by now that the election is over. You won’t see Obama until 2012, you won’t see Kerry until 2014, don’t be surprised to see him in Steeler colors at the Super Bowl. Southbridge is still waiting for their $500,000 for the Alicea vote switch. Aren’t broken promises part of the democratic legacy?