Rev. Robinson to Speak at Obama Inauguration

Episcopal priest, Rev. Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation at the opening inaugural service for Barack Obama.

Analysis
This is a good move and one clearly designed to balance the inclusion of Rick Warren. I don't really have a problem with Pastor Rick Warren's religion, it's his politics that offend. Specifically, his mission to deny and strip homosexuals of the same civil rights that belong to heterosexual Americans. In my humble belief, the Constitution treats us all the same and the laws should have no concern for sexual orientation.

Allowing Warren to speak validates that viewpoint. Thus, the selection of Robinson does serve as a nice counterweight. Better yet, though, would be not to have Warren. Reaching out to your political opponents goes too far if it condones their bigotry.

It's A Thin Line Between Love and H8

...At least that’s the case for Gays and Lesbians who overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for President. Here is a group who loved the former Senator and had hope that he would be an advocate for their rights, even though he was not an all out supporter of “marriage” as a title or as a matter of Government law.
The dustup over Pastor Rick Warren being chosen to participate in Obama’s inaugural ceremony is the latest sign of discontent among Obama’s base. Here is another segment of Progressives who feel betrayed.

Some believe that this was a good move for Obama, because it will pay off in the long run. By triangulating early to get more evangelical support, he will have more latitude to get the kind of legislation he wants from the House and especially the Senate. I’m not so sure that this was a good move. It’s another example of Obama overcompensating in order to widen his appeal. Does he believe that in 2012, he will be able to count on the support of all those he is betraying…. Progressives, Liberal Democrats, Gays & Lesbians, etc? Does he believe that he will be able to gain enough support from Conservatives and Red State Evangelicals by 2012 to make up for the loss of support from many within his own base? Or perhaps he believes that because of the current economic situation, no one is really paying attention to these other issues of “principle” and the fact that he is already going back on many of the campaign promises he made.

I’m not so sure that he can count on Evangelical Conservatives, and traditional Red State Republicans making up for the possible weakening of his own base. Obama runs the risk of having Gays and Lesbians, Liberal Democrats, and Progressives….even a few independents, staying home in 2012. This is especially the case if he doesn’t fix the economy. If he has a lot of failures over the next 4 years, one thing he could rely on would be the loyalty from his base… but he seems to be cashing those chips in early for a Centrist/Right of Center gamble.

I am no staunch supporter of Gay marriage….at least not as a title. Although I believe that there should be Domestic Partnership rights and Federal laws protecting Gays and Lesbians. Now if Gays & Lesbians want to have private ceremonies of their own…they can call it what they want. But I won’t argue that point here…whether Gay marriage is right or wrong. What I want to point out is that I am annoyed that a man could so easily abandon those who have given him so much support and could so easily & quickly abandon principles for the sake of political expediency. That’s bothersome to me.

Rick Warren is a man who was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the referendum outlawing Gay marriage in California. But in addition to that, Warren has made troubling comments about the Gay and Lesbian community, likening those in that lifestyle to criminals, and child rapists. I understand Obama’s attempts to reach out….but it’s how far he is willing to reach, and how contorted he is willing to get, for his own political benefit that is so troublesome. Even a man who is willing to reach out should be anchored by at least some core principles. Abe Lincoln had them, and Obama is using (at least in part) Lincoln’s reaching out as a basis for his attempt to build a good Cabinet. Reagan also had these core Principles. As did Kennedy, MLK, Mandela, and FDR. All of the great leaders of the past Century were anchored by certain core values and these values typically weren’t for sale. Is this something that Obama is misunderstanding about great leaders and coalition builders…that there are certain values that you should try to avoid abandoning, as well as people you shouldn’t want to abandon?

From what I understand, there were many other Pastors who could have been considered for the inaugural invocation…. Moderate Conservative Pastors who could have accomplished what Obama wanted to accomplish by placating both of the Constituencies that Obama should have been concerned with. Instead, he offended one…and is perceived by some as abandoning one constituency for another.

Yes, this may help Obama in the long run politically… but at the risk of alienating entire segments of the American populace. He runs the risk of looking like a man who is almost too calculating and someone who few will want to trust. When he needs the Progressive vote in 2012 it may be a harder sell. I doubt that the new Republican voters he is campaigning for now will be willing to vote for him in 4 years.

It’s another Obama gamble… in what is becoming a long list of gambles. I have a hard time believing that all of these moves will turn out as he planned.

Gay the New Black?

Now I have heard everything, The Gay Presidential Debates? Why the Gay Presidential Debate? There are a lot of black folks who cringed when moderator Margaret Carlson compared the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement.

Pam of Pam's House Blend get's the Gay Presidential Debates. She says, "Never in the history of American politics have presidential candidates been brought together to debate ?gay? issues. Pretty exciting stuff." More HERE. But everyone is not in agreement. The Gay Patriot has asked "Did you react so ferociously when the Blacks had their own special rights debate?" .... Why is everyone claiming this is a “first” presidential Gay Debate? More HERE

Even BET is asking questons to black viewers wondering if the Presidential Debate should focus on gay issues. On the other hand groups like The National Black Justice Coalition feel that America finally spoke up. If America spoke up there is black and white disagreement who won the Gay Presidential Debate. As an example E.J. Graff, of The Nation has a lot to say about what Democratic presidential candidates talk about when they talk about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues? Regarding the Gay Debate he says, Edwards hit it out of the park. Hillary got smartly on base, to wild--even excessive--cheers. Obama struck out. Check out his article HERE. While others were not impressed like Media Matters, that wrote, "They came, they saw, they pandered."

Yet the whole Gay Debate issue is taking another turn in black communities. As an eample, some in the black community asked even before the debate started if the “gay debate,” focusing solely on LGBT issues would likely ignore issues specific to the black gay community. More HERE Now after the debate black bloggers like Jasmyne Cannick see a lot of it as Pomp and Circumstance, she writes, " I think it’s great that Obama has addressed this issue outside of gay forums and within the Black community specifically Black churches, but I am not sure how effective he can really be in those forums when he himself Read More HERE.

Both Skepitical Brotha and Stereohyped are blogging about this issue as is Keith Boykin who says, "We've had a black debate, a labor debate, a CNN debate, an MSNBC debate, an Iowa debate, a New Hampshire debate, and even a YouTube debate. Next month Univision, the fifth most watched network in America, is sponsoring a Hispanic debate that they plan to simulcast into the Spanish language for their viewers. Only Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and John McCain have agreed to participate in that one. But tonight, Logo, the gay channel owned by Viacom, is sponsoring a gay debate with all the Democratic candidates. Is this too many debates?