Box Turtle Bulletin

Inauguration Committee May Try To Fix Robinson Snub

We reported earlier on a statement released to AmericaBlog from the Presidential Inauguration Committee communications director Josh Earnest. In it, Earnest described Bishop Robinson’s omission from the live broadcast of the Inaugural concert as an “error in executing this plan.” According to the statement, “We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson’s invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday’s program.”

Now AfterElton is reporting that insiders are saying that Rev. Robinson’s invocation might be broadcast tomorrow on the Jumbotron screens placed around the mall for the inauguration ceremony. Even if true, it is not certain that broadcast outlets would necessarily pick it up, as they almost certainly will Warren’s invocation.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was remarkable for its sterling attention to message. An “error in execution” like this would have been simply unthinkable. It’s astonishing to see such an impressive media savvy operation make such an colossal mess of things, and this dissonance will make just about any explanation of what happened difficult to swallow. After all, if Rev. Robinson’s late inclusion meant that people inside Obama’s clique heard and responded to the outrage over Rick Warren, then it’s difficult to understand how the ball could have been fumbled so badly in the simple act of adding Robinson to the bill.

But people really do screw up, sometimes royally. Barack Obama is only human — and a politician at that. I always knew he would disappoint us. I just didn’t think it would happen before he even took the oath of office.

HBO Says They’re Not To Blame For Robinson’s Omission In Inaugural Concert Special

Sunday afternoon, HBO broadcast the “We Are One” Inaugural Celebration live from the Lincoln Memorial. Openly gay bishop Gene Robinson delivered the invocation before the concert, but his prayer was omitted from HBO’s free nationwide broadcast. AfterElton contacted HBO Sunday night to ask about Rev. Robinson’s exclusion:

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. However, it does seem that the network’s position is that they had nothing to do with the decision. We have also contacted a spokesperson from the Presidential Inauguration Committee (PIC) for their explanation and will post what we learn either from PIC or HBO.

Rev. Robinson’s exclusion was deeply disappointing to millions of LGBT Americans. When Obama’s Inauguration Committee announced that Rev. Robinson would give the invocation for the Inaugural Concert, it was seen as an olive branch to the LGBT community which had been angered over Rick Warren’s selection to lead the invocation during the inauguration itself. The announcement concerning Rick Warren came just days after he compared gay relationships to incest, child rape and polygamy.

Obama’s team needs to come clean on this one. They need to admit either that they didn’t intend for Rev. Robinson to be seen on nationwide television, or that someone severely screwed up. This olive branch came with too many thorns to be ignored and swept under the rug.

The official announcement concerning the concert lineup which included mention of Rev. Robinson’s invocation made no distinction between “pre-show” and the lineup which would be broadcast nationwide. In fact, the announcement instead brags that the event would be “kicking off the most open and accessible Inauguration in history” — right after the HBO programming announcement. LGBT Americans who tuned in to watch the historic moment didn’t learn that Rev. Robinson had already given his invicocation until long after the broadcast had begin. Rev. Robinson’s invocation came at about ten minutes before the start of the broadcast.

Even many of those in attendance missed Robinson’s prayer. As he began to speak, sound was cut off to many of the speakers, making him inaudible to most of the estimated 500,000 people who gathered at Mall.

A video of Rev. Robinson’s invocation has made it onto YouTube. While we’re grateful that someone in the crowd with a videocam did an excellent job in capturing this moment, we suspect that Warren’s YouTube will come with somewhat better production values.

Gene Robinson’s Invocation Shoved Into HBO’s Closet

When the Obama Inaugural committee announced that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop, would deliver the invocation at the “We Are The One” concert at the Lincoln Memorial, it was seen as an olive branch to the gay community, still seething over the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation for the Inauguration itself.

The announcement that Rick Warren was selected came just days after Warren compared gay relationships to incest, child rape and polygamy. But by pointing out that Rev. Robinson’s invocation would come at the start of the HBO-aired live concert in front of one of America’s best-loved memorials, this high-profile announcement was portrayed as a separate-but-almost-equal bookend to Warren’s invocation at the Capital steps.

Well, except it turned out not to be nearly so equal. In yet another deep insult to injury, HBO did not air Rev. Robinson’s invocation. The salve to the gay community meant to calm the outrage over Warren’s selection was for naught. Hundreds of millions around the world will hear Warren’s invocation on Tuesday. But today, the only ones to hear Rev. Robinson’s prayer were those thousands who were present at the mall. Robinson’s prayer wasn’t aired live, nor was it aired during the 7:00 p.m. rebroadcast.

And guess what else was shoved into the closet?  The D.C. Gay Men’s Chorus singing with Josh Groban. Unlike every other performer, they came and went without being identified.

These snubs are inexcusable. Did HBO cave in the face of conservative outcries over Rev. Robinson’s selection for this event? Did the Inaugural committee rush Rev. Robinson onstage and off before the broadcast was slated to begin? Whatever the case may be, this is a cold slap. HBO has some serious explaining to do, as does the Inaugural committee.

Harvey Milk is screaming in his metaphorical grave right now.

Update: HBO says they’re not to blame for Rev. Robinson’s omission.

Click here to read Rev. Robinson’s invocation.

Gay Former Clinton Aide Furious Over Rick Warren

David Gilgoff at U.S. News and World Reports mistrusts LGBT leaders’ ability to speak for the gay community (he generally distrusts leaders of any movement, not just LGBT). So he was wondering if the rank-and-file were as mollified over Obama’s invitation to Gene Robinson as the LGBT leaders seemed to be, or were they still upset over Rick Warren giving the inaugural invocation. “Without polls, it’s really impossible to know,” he explained.

But he is getting a lot of angtry comments from LGBT people who aren’t happy with their self-appointed leaders. One came from a former Clinton White House aide:

… [T]he problem here goes well beyond Warren’s incendiary language equating gay marriage with incest. He is what he is. The greater problem lies in the President-Elect’s cruel calculation that this insult and offense to gay America is acceptable collateral damage for whatever plus he sees in the suck-up to Warren, giving profile and platform to this mega-merchant of discrimination in the first program agenda item during the first official act of his first day in office. I was one of the 12 first-ever openly gay White House staff members to take up work the day following President Clinton’s inauguration. His respect for gay Americans was evident even when setbacks and disappointments slowed the change agenda, and he certainly did not deliberately nor unnecessarily scheme to sell out gay Americans on his first day in office to score points with opponents. Ordinary gay Americans will need to hold this new Administration to the tenets of its campaign and to the idealism of its Inaugural language — and to a fundamental expectation for respect. The Warren invitation remains a disgrace and a blemish on day one of the new Administration. Shame on Obama.

Meanwhile, Nancy Goldstein thinks the Robinson choice was “too little, too late.”

Barack Obama Was For Same-Sex Marriage Before He Was Against It

During Barack Obama’s 2008 run for the White House, he was asked at the HRC/Logo forum about his position on same-sex marriage. His responses went like this:

…I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible. When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.

…

My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. …  I…would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Generally, he was supportive of what he called “strong civil unions,” but he did not want to call a same-sex union a marriage. Even though he opposed Prop 8, his reluctance to address marriage directly gave Prop 8 supporters an opening to mischaracterize his position to African-American and other voters in California.

But there was a time however when Obama felt differently and wasn’t afraid to say so. In a Windy City Timeshas a special inaugural edition, they combed through their archives for material from Obama’s 1996 Illinois State Senate race.

The first item from their archives was a questionnaire sent to Obama by IMPACT, which was Chicago’s main LGBT political action committee. On question 7 of the questionnaire, IMPACT asked about same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois. Obama’s answer went like this (his handwritten answer in boldface):

7. Do you endorse the Marriage Resolution, a statement to of support for the right of same-gender individuals to marry:

Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choise.

RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who chose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.

…

I would support such a resolution.

During the same campaign, the Outlines newspaper (which later merged with Windy City Times) sent a questionnaire as well. Obama’s typewritten response to question three was more direct:

I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages

By the time then-State Sen. Obama was running for the U.S. Senate however, his position shifted. In a 2004 interview with Windy City Times, his answer morphed into the one which is familiar today:

I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.

I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly …

…

What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.

In 2008, there was no mention of his position on same-sex marriage as being a “strategic” position. That part of his answer has been dropped altogether. Otherwise, his message has been consistent since 2004. But it’s sadly a far cry from where he first started.

Bishop Robinson To Deliver Invocation At Inaugural Kickoff

In an apparent olive branch to the gay community, President-elect Barack Obama’s inaugural committee has announced that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003, will deliver the invocation at the inaugural kickoff at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. However, the Obama camp denies that this invitation came about as a response to controversy over Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at the inauguration itself:

An Obama source: “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.”

Incoming White House Press Secretary Gives One Word Answer On DADT

Incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is featured in a second YouTube post addressing questions submitted by ordinary citizens via President-Elect Barack Obama’s change.gov web site. After five other questions about the economy, “No Child Left Behind,” transportation, sound science, and health care, Gibbs came to this question at the 4:16 mark:

Thaddeus from Lansing, Michigan asks, “Is the new administration going to get rid of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy?”  Thaddeus, you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it’s ‘Yes’.”

Of course, saying ‘yes’ and giving an indication of a timetable or priority is two different things. We’ll see.

Obama’s Inaugural Benedition Pastor Also Does Not Support Gay Marriage

When the Rick Warren controversy arose, I looked for evidence that Joseph Lowery, the Methodist minister giving the benediction, actually does support gay marriage. I couldn’t find any quotes saying so.

Because he doesn’t. Here he is on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Newer, Gay-Friendlier Rick Warren (Same as the Old Rick Warren with new packaging)

Rick Warren has been criticized recently at Box Turtle Bulletin for doing and saying some pretty disgusting things about gay couples recently. Our scrutiny increased after President-Elect Obama selected Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration.

We were not alone in our criticism. The blogosphere, along with mainstream media, have run with the story (or at least part of it) challenging the Obama administration in its relationship with the gay community before he has even taken office and tarnishing the shiny-friendly image of Rick Warren’s brand of Evangelical Christianity.

So Rick Warren has taken his love show on the road. Over the past week he has been denying that he’s homophobic, laughing off complaints, declaring his civility, and chatting up Melissa Etheridge, and even changing his church’s website.

But sadly, most of Warren’s efforts have not been directed at healing the hurt he has caused. Instead he seeks to defend himself and dismiss the concerns of the community.

On Monday, Warren posted to his church’s website a video in which he purports to clarify his statements and give perspective. He does state in the video that he does not think that gay relationships are the moral equivalent of incest or pedophilia or polygamy.

But mostly it’s just a denunciation of journalists and bloggers and anyone else who dare criticize Rick Warren.

In the video he reimagines his interview with Beliefnet in which he compared gay couples to incest, polygamy, and pedophila. As he retells it, he also objected to unmarried couples living together and commonlaw partnerships.

This didn’t fly with Steve Waldman, the Beliefnet writer who interviewed Warren.

In his December 22 video Warren had an opportunity to do something quite straightforward and healing: clarify, take resonsibility and, ideally, apologize. He did clarify but did not, in my view, take responsibility. He could have simply said, “it came out in a way I didn’t mean and I apologize for those who I hurt because of that.” It wouldn’t have required him to back off his position on gay marriage one iota. Instead, he blamed the media and misremember or mischaracterized what he’d said.

Rick Warren is probably not an evil guy. And he probably doesn’t go about his day thinking of how to make the lives of gay people more difficult.

But Warren is like many preachers I have known. He is convinced that God has called him and that this entitles him to stand above criticism. He’s become accustomed to being a leader of his flock (at 22,000 an awfully large flock) and having his word equated with Gospel.

To Rick Warren, admitting that he has done others wrong is akin to admitting that God is wrong. And why should he back down? God is on his side.

Sadly, the history of Evangelicalism is full of those who were convinced that conquering their personal moral failings were secondary to God’s Work, who were certain that God performed as they declared, and who discovered that pride comes before a fall.

Rick Warren would be well served by publicly repenting for his sin against gay couples and seeking a life of humility in which criticism is weighed for its worth and complaints are not laughed away.

Tammy Baldwin, Take Your Name Off that List

CBS News is reporting that lesbian legislator Tammy Baldwin is an Honorary Inaugural Co-Chair:

The Presidential Inaugural Committee has released a list of the honorary co-chairs for Barack Obama’s inauguration. The group includes former Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; Senators Dick Durbin, Dick Lugar and Claire McCaskill; and well known figures such as General Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama, and the president-elect’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng.

Also on the list is openly gay Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin.

The message given to gay and lesbian youth by the selection of Rick Warren for the Inaugural Invocation is that the administration sees no harm in comparing same-sex couples to incestuous polygamous pedophiles. Any gay or lesbian that truly cares about this message cannot in good conscience endorse the actions of the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

And the press will not be slow to see Baldwin’s inclusion as an endorsement of Warren and as a buffer to criticism against the President-Elect.

Clearly this is but another token of valueless “inclusion” like the marching band. Gays can have a silent and distant honorary place at the table, but the head seat goes to the guy who will “not tolerate” us and thinks we have no human rights and writes tributes to those who seek to imprison us.

Barney Frank has already taken a stand. Now it’s time for Tammy Baldwin to show whether she truly cares about the community. It’s time that she decide, is she on the side of that tomboy in Wisconsin who is being told that she’s an abomination, or does she want to be part of the Obama Nation? Does she want to protect the vulnerable, or does she want to win points with the powerful?

Tammy Baldwin, if you have any decency, take your name off that list.

MADISON OFFICE
10 East Doty Street, Suite 405
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 258-9800
(608) 258-9808 Fax

BELOIT OFFICE
400 E. Grand Ave, Suite 402
Beloit, WI 53511
(608) 362-2800
(608) 362-2838 Fax

WASHINGTON OFFICE
2446 Rayburn Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-2906
(202) 225-6942 Fax

Time Magazine’s Cloud Calls Obama a Bigot

John Cloud, writing in Time Magazine, pulled no punches in his response to President-Elect Obama’s selection of Rick Warren as the minister for his Inaugural Invocation:

Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

I’m not willing to go as far as Cloud and call Mr. Obama a bigot. He has established a comprehensive list of goals that would go a very long way towards eliminating institutionalized discrimination against the LGBT community and it is far too early to dismiss this agenda as insincere.

But I do think that the President-Elect is now demonstrating a pattern of response to the gay community which suggests that he does not see our expressions of concern and dismay in the same light as he might those of other subgroups of the American population.

I find it unconscionable that any religious leader would say that a “brother and sister [being] together” and “an older guy marrying a child” are “equivalent to gays getting married”. And I find it perplexing that Barack Obama does not.

Rick Warren Congratulates Himself On His “Model of Civility”

Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren has issued this statement on President-elect Barack Obama’s choosing him to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration:

I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony.

Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America. …

Warren’s model of civility includes describing his “many gay friends” as being in relationships which are morally equivalent to child rape, incest, and polygamy, as well as his bald-faced lies about what Prop 8 will do to free speech. Yes, I’m sounding like a broken record, but I’ll keep saying that because that’s the whole point.

The mainstream media is saying that the outrage over picking Warren stems from his support for Prop 8.  That may explain some of the opposition to him, but it doesn’t explain the near-unanimous and vociferous outrage that is being expressed in the LGBT community. The fuel for the explosive reaction comes from a much deeper source.

It is indeed possible to support Prop 8 civilly. But Warren did not do that. Instead, he not only lied about what it would do, but he further insulted his “many gay friends” — and the rest of us — when he described their relationships as being on par with the lowest form of criminals. Even the most vile criminals — convicted rapists of old ladies, serial killers of defenseless orphans, and baby torturers — they all look down on child molesters, and they don’t think twice about killing them in the most sadistic way. But Warren thinks that the deeply held relationships among his “many gay friends” are no better than child rape. Or incest. Or polygamy.

That is the outrage. Maybe some day Rick Warren will see the need to apologize deeply for that offense. But it won’t happen until everyone — including the mainstream media — calls him on it. It’s not just about Prop 8. It goes much, much deeper, to that “model of civility” that Warren lacks.

Barney Frank on Warren Pick

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) just sent out this statement on Obama’s selection of Rick Warren to offer the Inaugural invocation:

I am very disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to honor Reverend Rick Warren with a prominent role in his inauguration. Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage. But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.

It is irrelevant that Rev. Warren invited Senator Obama to address his congregation, since he extended an equal invitation to Senator McCain. Furthermore, the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented. The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated.

How the Inauguration Team Views “LGBT Interests”

The Inaugural Committee has sent out talking points on why selecting Rick Warren’s and his message equating gays to pedophiles for the Inaugural Invocation is “inclusive”. They concluded with what they must think is their stongest point:

And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

Ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod, how exciting. I’ll have a representative there at the inauguration representing my interests.

Oh my goodness, who could it be? Perhaps a gay politician, or the leader of a gay rights group, or even someone who has stepped up to speak out against institutionalized inequality in the wake of Proposition 8?

Nope. My representatives to the President-Elect are these guys:

Yes, the representation that gay people will have at the inauguration will be a gay marching band included among the couple dozen bands that will march down Pennsylvania Avenue after the swearing in ceremony.

Well, that’s doesn’t sound very effective. But perhaps they are stellar representatives of my “interests”. So let’s take a look at the goals of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association:

LGBA remains dedicated to its original goals of providing a network of lesbian and gay bands at all stages of development, promoting music as a medium of communication among people, improving the quality of artistic and organizational aspects of member bands, and stimulating public interest in the unique art form of community band music in our culture.

Un-huh.

Don’t get me wrong. I love marching bands. And I think it’s wonderful that amoung the dozens of bands participating will be one whose members are recruited from the gay community.

But frankly, I find it offensive that the Inaugural Committee is so incredibly condescending as to think that this group will be “representing the interests of LGBT Americans” just because they happen to be gay.

If this is any indication of the inclusion that gay people will have in the Obama Administration, we can look forward to (at least) four years of patronizing and dismissive gestures. We should all sit up and be thankful that we can march in the band. And maybe if we’re really appreciative maybe we can also do Michelle’s hair and make-up.

That isn’t inclusion. That’s a slap in the face.

I am hoping that this is an aberration, that the Obama administration will be dedicated not only to the reversal of discriminatory policy but also to the inclusion of gay men and women at all levels of government, selected for their abilities to contribute to their nation. But I do not consider the appointments to date or the administration’s response to the Rick Warren controversy to be promising.

Obama Responds To Criticisms Over Warren Pick

President-elect Barack Obama responded this morning to the controversy over his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation during Obama’s inauguration:

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and — well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign’s been all about, that we’re never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery — who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues — is also speaking.

“Balancing” an anti-Semite with a Rabbi would clearly be outrageous, as would balancing a segregationist with someone who supports racial equality. No one would even begin to consider such an outlandish idea. I’m glad Dr. Lowery will be giving the benediction, at the end when everyone will already be leaving to escape the cold January weather. But this is not balance.

Obama is trying to bring differing sides together. I get that, and it’s an admirable and necessary task. But if Obama’s looking for someone who can disagree without being disagreeable, Warren’s clearly not the guy. If Warren had labeled Barack’s marriage to Michelle as morally indistinguishable from child rape, incest or polygamy, would Obama see fit to invite such a disagreeable figure to America’s celebration? Or is it just us that it’s acceptable to be disagreeable with?

And are we the only ones who must tolerate those who compare us to the lowest form of criminals and who laughs when we complain?