Gay bishop will open inaugural weekend

[Political Tiger]

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who was elected the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003, will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Presidential Inaugural Committee said.

President-elect Obama is scheduled to attend the afternoon event, which is free and open to the public.

“The president-elect has respect for the Rt. Rev. Robinson, who offered his advice and counsel over the past couple of years,” an inaugural official said. “It also has the benefit of further reinforcing our commitment to an open and inclusive inaugural.”

Robinson remains the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire.

{...}

An Obama source said: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.”

Last summer, Robinson was united in a civil union with his longtime gay partner. The Concord (N.H.) Monitor reported at the time: “The day marked the five-year anniversary of the New Hampshire election that, once ratified, made Robinson the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican church.”

{...}

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17340.html

[Creideiki]

1. Not exactly the concession I was hoping for

The issue was never that I wanted a gay clergy member to speak at the inauguration. It was more that people that act to divide and denigrate others shouldn't be included this time around. We've had a lot of that "divider, not a uniter" stuff for the last 8 years.

[CTyankee]

4. I think the same could be said by the anti-gay bigots re Robinson.

His opening this service is probably being seen as a "slap in the face" to the so-called religious right. I'm sure they see it as divisive.

Hmm,maybe a theme is developing here...

[Creideiki]

5. What theme do you think that is?

Just because I'm curious.

[CTyankee]

14. Well, it is not really well developed but I have been thinking about why

Obama would invite Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural. I don't think Obama is a bigot and he is not stupid. While I am unsure if this is the right strategy, I have come to the conclusion that he is deliberately bringing forward people at opposite ends of the spectrum on gay rights in order to make the point that he is the president of all of the people and we have to accept that, even tho we may not like it.

I guess we'll see what happens...

[Deep13]

19. They forget that inclusion necessarily means intolerance of hate.

People who are gay or who agree with them are not anti-Christian (noun). We simply object to being attacked as evil ourselves. That necessarily means we object to schools of thought that paint us as evil.

[CTyankee]

28. Here again the bigoted fundies would whine that we liberals are attacking them as evil themselves.

While I see through that self serving veneer, that's really at the basis of their assertion that folks such as us are "attacking Christianity" and seeing themselves as victims.

[AntiFascist]

26. Good point...

I hope Obama cuts the religious crap once he takes office and quits dividing people.

[GodlessBiker]

2. A good step.

[MikeE]

3. That popping soud you just heard

was more right-wing fundy heads exploding. :rofl:

[goclark]

6. I plan to be right there and cheering him

with all my friends.

I am a former member of that denomination and I recall all the stupid thermal about him at the time.

[xchrom]

7. i love gene -- but please understand -- gene has never said

a bad word about heteros, he's never been involved in nefarious activities regarding heteros -- he has approached his ministry both before he was a bishop and after as a really humble person who wants to serve.

rick and gene and the objection thereof are not in the same universe.

[keepCAblue]

22. Yes, Robinson is unassailable. Warren, on the other hand... n/t

[kwassa]

8. Gene Robinson is a great guy

and he is also the focus of the cultural war going on inside the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion over gay rights. The Episcopal Church is standing strong for gay rights, and Robinson. It all started when Robinson was elevated to Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.


Robinson has been strongly criticizing Rick Warren the past few weeks, and said that the choice of Warren was a "slap in the face" to the gay community. I don't believe for one second that Obama's people had him in mind before the Warren choice blew up in their faces.

[LostinVA]

12. "I don't believe for one second that Obama's people had him in mind before the Warren choice

blew up in their faces."

Me either. I would like to be proved wrong.

[kwassa]

20. well, an Episcopal blog said that they knew about this before Christmas

and were informed on the understanding that they couldn't publish it then.

They don't know if Robinson knew, however. Robinson didn't hold back in criticizing Warren in the press over the holidays.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/breaking_bishop_gene_robinson.html

[keepCAblue]

23. Why would they suppress announcement of Robinson's but not Warrens?

Makes no sense, unless they were afraid of a homophobic backlash by the fundies, which would suggest Obama's team cares more about the concerns of the fundies than they do of the LGBTQI community...

[SacredCow]

9. Has the outrage started yet?

:popcorn:

[Raster]

10. No, but thank gawd you're here to kick it off.

Thanks for playing! Enjoy the popcorn.

[LostinVA]

11. Seriously

:eyes:

[SacredCow]

13. Hey- If the Warren sympathizers can enjoy pandering to THAT choice...

I can enjoy seeing fundie heads explode over THIS one.

[Maven]

15. Having Robinson there is great, but again, there's no "balance" here.

There is no equivalency wherein one speaker cancels out the other. Warren should not be there, period.

[xchrom]

16. people don't understand -- gene has never attacked heteros.

gene is hated for just being.

but people here see it as being the same.

[bluedawg12]

17. If politico says it wasn't a reaction to the Warren outrage -then it most certainly was

Politico would not say a supportive thing about gay rights, butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

[SacredCow]

18. Regardless of Politico.....

The timing makes it more than suspect. Prior to this election cycle, few people had ever heard of Rick Warren. Gene Robinson has been a public figure (and a quite positive one) for some time. If they had Robinson on board for some time as they claim, they would have publicized it before now, I feel VERY sure...

The idea of this "canceling out" Warren's involvement is rather juvenile, though. This isn't algebra class where +1 plus -1 = 0 (aka a wash).

[yardwork]

21. There must be a half-dozen threads announcing this on DU - hard to pick one to which to respond.

This was a nice gesture on Obama's part, and I appreciate and recognize it as such. However, he may still be missing the point.

As a U.S. citizen first and a lesbian second, I never expected or wanted Obama to pick a special "gay" representative for his inauguration. It never crossed my mind. My objection to Rick Warren is that Warren's major focus is on denying gay people - and many others - equal rights. Warren is an activist in hate and disenfranchisement, as evidenced by his promotion of Proposition 8 in California and many other similar campaigns throughout the U.S. His words about gay people - comparing us to pedophiles, for example - are openly homophobic. A person who behaves like this has no place at our new president's inauguration. Reach out to him? Sure. Invite him to a round table. Include him on a panel. But Obama should not have honored him in the way that he has done. Too late now, however.

It is good that Obama is honoring Gene Robinson in this way, but Gene is the kind of person Obama should have been inviting in the first place - not because he's gay, but because he is a good and decent person who walks and talks the message of love.

I disagree with the politics of identity, and don't want to see Obama make gestures to this group and that group. Honor a bigot, honor a good person to make up for it. That's not the right approach, in my opinion. Let's retain the honors for those who deserve it.

Talk to bigots? Sure. But we don't have to honor them, and inviting one good person for every bigot doesn't make it even.

[keepCAblue]

24. "Honor a bigot, honor a good person to make up for it..."

"Let's retain the honors for those who deserve it."

Yardwork, that sums it up simply and perfectly. It is so sad that so many people (on DU and beyond) can't grasp such a simple concept...

[yardwork]

25. Thank you. It seems so simple, doesn't it? The sort of thing one learns early in life.

[Maven]

27. PLEASE post this as on OP

Excellent explanation.

[yardwork]

29. Thank you, but I'm sulking. You're welcome to plagiarize, though.

I'd be honored.