Gayer Inauguration

[sjbouza]

Well, Pres Elect Obama has made the his Inauguration just a little gayer today. In a Politico article he is having "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."

Full story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090112/pl_politico/17340) via yahoo news.

It may look like this is a reaction to the whole Warren issue. It may be, who really knows. Does it make a difference if it was? I don't think so. At least he is showing the LGBT some good recognition other than the "gay marching band" that was invited.

Many have said that "bigots should never be allowed at the table". If that were the case then we could never have open dialog with them and hopefully find some common ground. If there isn't a place open for everyone, then the lines of communication are severed and nothing can be accomplished. Yes, I know Warren has issues with the LGBT community. However, allowing him into the "fold" may be a good thing for both sides. At least we may be able to have some dialog. It may be good, it may be bad, at least the line was open.

Would you rather have a door slammed in your face, or it open even if just a little bit and have an opportunity to talk with someone?

Peace,
Scott

[Rick336]

It may look like this is a reaction to the whole Warren issue. It may be, who really knows. Does it make a difference if it was?



Scott,

This is great news!

Tens of thousands of LGBT people sent messages to the Obama Transition team with objections to the pick of Warren giving the invocation. With this new decision about Bishop Robinson being made only nine days before the inauguration, it certainly appears that the Obama team heard our objections and reacted.

And yes, I think it definitely makes a difference. It means the Obama team hears us.:weee:

I feel much better now. :)

Rick

[Rick336]

Here's an article from US News and World Report about Obama's choice of Robinson:

"I'll be checking in with gay rights groups today to gauge whether other leaders are as ebullient." - Dan Gilgoff of US News and World Report

Click here for article:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/01/12/after-rick-warren-flap-gay-episcopal-bishop-tapped-for-obama-inauguration.html


Rick

[Montanna]

This is good news. It looks like they may have heard our complaints. One thing I find obnoxious about public prayers is that too many times they end up being a political statement. It will be interesting to compare what each of them (Robinson and Warren) provides in their invocation. Do you suppose that anyone looks at what they will say before the actual event?

[keltic63]

let me be the wet blanket for a moment, if I may.

I'm not buying the statement that this was in the plans before the Rick Warren complaints:


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.”


If this were true, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say that Robinson was involved in Inauguration ceremonies way back when they announced that Rick Warren was doing the invocation?

It feels like they're tossing us a bone to shut us up. I'd like to be wrong on this. really. I would.

[sjbouza]

I agree with you Keltic23. I think that it is a reaction to the Warren issue. I see your point exactly. At least Obama did hear our words and did something about it.

Now is it just to appease us for the time being, or is it a true offering from the heart? I am hoping the latter. We shall see when other issues start to come to light, DADT, DOMA, EDNA, etc.

Peace,
Scott

[Daniel]

If this were true, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say that Robinson was involved in Inauguration ceremonies way back when they announced that Rick Warren was doing the invocation?


As they say, is impeccable.

T'would be interesting to find out just when Robinson was tapped. After all, he made the statement shortly after Warren was announced that the latter did not pray to the same God!

[Matt Algren]

let me be the wet blanket for a moment, if I may.

I'm not buying the statement that this was in the plans before the Rick Warren complaints:



If this were true, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say that Robinson was involved in Inauguration ceremonies way back when they announced that Rick Warren was doing the invocation?

It feels like they're tossing us a bone to shut us up. I'd like to be wrong on this. really. I would.
I agree, but you know what? I'm okay with that. Bone or not, it's a step. Does it make the Rick Warren thing okay? Of course not. But if nothing else, Bishop Robinson's inclusion will be an opening to a lot of people who think you can't be gay and Christian.

Jeremy Hooper over at Good-As-You said the following today (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/01/warren-peace-a-positive-inaugural-step-from-team-obama.html), and it's important to remember:

Now, does this make up for the Rick Warren misstep? No, not in our eyes. The equality fight is not a zero sum game wherein every pro-equality voice should be matched with one who has, among many other things, said gays should just bottle up their truths.

But is this an undeniable positive? Abso-religo-lutely! And we applaud Team Obama for the invite.

One more thing: I've started seeing reaction from the Dobson/Warren-ites, and it isn't pretty. That doesn't bother me either. We raised a stink and I have no problem with them doing the same. What it does is let people in that movable middle compare their reaction to ours and see the difference.

I've been outspoken and forceful with my language on the Rick Warren thing, but just in the last five minutes I've found three blogs where Robinson is called a non-Christian because he pledged to offer a universal prayer. One calls him wicked. Another calls him a heretic. I've seen him called Vickie twice today.

There's a stark difference. One is a light shown on what Rick Warren tries to hide and the other (at least in the early stages) is pretty embarassing "burn him" rhetoric.

I'm happy to let people who aren't sure about us see the difference between us and them.

P.S. Anybody else notice that the other side tends not to allow unmoderated comments?

[Rick336]

I agree, but you know what? I'm okay with that. Bone or not, it's a step. Does it make the Rick Warren thing okay? Of course not. But if nothing else, Bishop Robinson's inclusion will be an opening to a lot of people who think you can't be gay and Christian.

I feel the same way. I can definitely live with this. I was at the point of becoming real pissed at Obama especially since I had worked so hard for his campaign. This decision definitely makes me feel better. Now I can enjoy the inauguration.

Rick

[Alecto]

Ok, y'know what? The Warren thing isn't ok. This is an overt attempt to make up for his mistake without saying "that was a mistake". He's not even in office yet, and it would look bad to "cave to pressures" and go back on any decisions. Fine. But the Warren thing isn't ok on the premise of "dialogue". Because this isn't a dialogue. Strictly speaking, it's a monologue, given by Warren (who, btw, is not making things any easier, politically, for Obama: seems like daily he does something new to demonstrate his bigotry).

I'm for the idea of a dialogue. I'm for the idea of Warren even meeting with Obama. And maybe others too. I'm for the idea of a dialogue, but THIS IS NOT A DIALOGUE and I'm kind of sick of seeing it dismissed and excused as such. This is someone who is supposed to lead the NATION in prayer who is, I think, utterly incapable of praying for the whole nation.

[Rick336]

Ok, y'know what? The Warren thing isn't ok. This is an overt attempt to make up for his mistake without saying "that was a mistake". He's not even in office yet, and it would look bad to "cave to pressures" and go back on any decisions. Fine. But the Warren thing isn't ok on the premise of "dialogue". Because this isn't a dialogue. Strictly speaking, it's a monologue, given by Warren (who, btw, is not making things any easier, politically, for Obama: seems like daily he does something new to demonstrate his bigotry).

I'm for the idea of a dialogue. I'm for the idea of Warren even meeting with Obama. And maybe others too. I'm for the idea of a dialogue, but THIS IS NOT A DIALOGUE and I'm kind of sick of seeing it dismissed and excused as such. This is someone who is supposed to lead the NATION in prayer who is, I think, utterly incapable of praying for the whole nation.

Right. The Warren thing still pisses me off too. But the inauguration is only a week away. The chance of a dialogue happening during the next week is slim, and once the inauguration is over the Warren controversy will quickly fade.

Obama has promised to support the employment non-discrimination act, gays in the military, and the hate crimes bill and to dump the defense of marriage act. If he doesn't, then we'll have plenty to raise hell about then. But for right now, I just want to celebrate Obama's inauguration and the inclusion of Bishop Robinson allows me to do that.

Rick

[nmwolfboy]

let me be the wet blanket for a moment, if I may.

I'm not buying the statement that this was in the plans before the Rick Warren complaints:

If this were true, wouldn't it have been so much easier to say that Robinson was involved in Inauguration ceremonies way back when they announced that Rick Warren was doing the invocation?

It feels like they're tossing us a bone to shut us up. I'd like to be wrong on this. really. I would.Except that +Gene has stated (in the Concord Monitor, i think) that he doesn't believe his invite was in response to outcry over the Warren choice.

[keltic63]

Except that +Gene has stated (in the Concord Monitor, i think) that he doesn't believe his invite was in response to outcry over the Warren choice.

the real indicator of that would be when he was invited to participate. It's great the Gene feels this is an honest invitation, and I believe he is right to accept it. But that doesn't mean that it's not politically motivated to calm the lgbt crowd who supported Obama in the election.

[nmwolfboy]

There's a more detailed report (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_104179_ENG_HTM.htm) at Episcopal Life. According to +Gene, he was invited to this event two & a half weeks ago. My point about giving credence to +Gene's take on this is that he has actually spoken to representatives at the Inaugural Committee, so he has something upon which to base his judgment.

[keltic63]

There's a more detailed report (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_104179_ENG_HTM.htm) at Episcopal Life. According to +Gene, he was invited to this event two & a half weeks ago. My point about giving credence to +Gene's take on this is that he has actually spoken to representatives at the Inaugural Committee, so he has something upon which to base his judgment.

point taken.

and not to beat a dead horse: We've been talking about the Warren invitation since mid-December. It could still be a reaction to the outcry against the Warren invite, whether Robinson feels that it is or is not. And as I said before, it is right for Robinson to accept the invitation and participate.

and for all my naysaying in this thread (and I hope I'm done) I do believe that this is a great opportunity to show that "We the People" includes lgbt people, and that we can indeed come to the table and meet with those who would prefer we just disappear.

[nmwolfboy]

and for all my naysaying in this thread (and I hope I'm done) I do believe that this is a great opportunity to show that "We the People" includes lgbt people, and that we can indeed come to the table and meet with those who would prefer we just disappear.Well said.

Madpriest, a UK blogger with his typically unique Anglican perspective posted this take on the matter:
If Barack Obama had not invited Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration then Bishop Gene Robinson would not have been invited. Think about this!

Some uncontroversial, safe minister would have stood up and said a few uncontroversial words and everything would have been exactly the same as before. But, because of Warren's invitation, a canonically appointed bishop, from the most respected denomination in the US, will stand there in the shadow of King and Lincoln and tell the world that LGBT people are an integral part of God's church and God's creation.The rest of his post (http://revjph.blogspot.com/2009/01/madpriest-on-inauguration.html) is worth reading, imho, as are the comments (they're often the yummy icing on Madpriest's posts. Nom, nom!)

[nmwolfboy]

There's another report (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5504882.ece) about +Gene's invite from the UK Timesonline. Here's an excerpt:According to Bishop Robinson's friend Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the ultra-liberal Bishop John Chane of Washington, who broke the story on his Episcopal Cafe blog, there will undoubtedly be some controversy over whether the Bishop was invited as a response to the intense criticism of Mr Obama's selection of Rick Warren.

Mr Naughton said: "We don't know. We've been sitting on this news since just before Christmas, so it has been in the works for a while. But if Gene had been contacted before the Warren selection was announced, it seems unlikely he would have spoken out so strongly against the choice.

[Rick336]

From USA Today:

Activists cheer Obama's choice of gay bishop

Here --->http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-12-obamagay_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


Rick

[dsdrane]

Japhy's take (http://www.queerty.com/gay-bishops-inclusion-heals-wounds-but-make-no-mistake-who-made-it-happen-20090113/#more-37296) over at QUEERTY.

[keltic63]

Gene Robinson's All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99311912&sc=emaf) interview on NPR.

[Rick336]

Japhy's take (http://www.queerty.com/gay-bishops-inclusion-heals-wounds-but-make-no-mistake-who-made-it-happen-20090113/#more-37296) over at QUEERTY.

That was a great article. And I agree....we DID make a difference with our complaints of Warren. Obama heard us and fixed it.

Rick

[Daniel]

1) timelines are important: an analysis of events indicates that Warren was asked to speak, the GLBT community made a fuss, Robinson was asked to speak sometime after that - and no one said a word- and now there was the recent announcment Robinson is going to appear. That's interesting.

2) Robinson may truly believe that Obama asked him to appear- and not just to placate GLBT folks. However, why in heavens name would we expect him to say otherwise? It's not smart to accept an invitation and then complain about it! The man- if he is anything- knows how to be gracious. And there is a lot of strength in that.

3) Robinson's appearance is a case of 'take the money and run". Sometimes it doesn't matter how we wind up at the table, only that we are there. And while our communal sense of pride has been sorely wounded, taking the higher ground here may be the smart thing to do.

4) No matter what, I believe that we should not become complacent and expect Obama to do our work for us.

addendum:

Just listened to Robinson at NPR, and like his phrase "the God of many understandings." which he intends to use, rather than do what has been done in the past, and that is "aggressive" Christian language.

I think that's a step in the right direction. Now. Will Warren be as embracing?