DISQUS

Skepticat · 1 year ago

NPR didn't cover Bishop Robinson either, so it looks as though it was the inaugural committee's decision. I've sent them a nasty e-mail--not that it matters.

sherifffruitfly · 1 year ago

Hmmm a corporation with a vested interest in not having a bunch of gay folks be mad at them, and who "couldn't say" whether or not they were contractually prohibited from showing it.

And the convenience of having a fall guy nearby who gay folks already don't like.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 1 year ago

Was there a microphone malfunction also? Someone commented earlier that nobody could hear Robinson's prayer due to a microphone malfunction.

And what about the DC Gay Men's Chorus slight by HBO?? I didn't see them at all but someone said they were at the concert but HBO failed to identify them due to some technical malfunction....

dacnova · 1 year ago

Other than the Naval Academy Glee Club, it didn't look like HBO identified any of the back up groups. It makes me wonder...

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

Naval Academy: Glee Club acceptable to name.

Gay men, African-Americans: their choirs unacceptable to name.

Gary SF · 1 year ago

Were all of the backup groups gay?

tlsintx · 1 year ago

maybe Rick Warren will come down with fundie flu and Bishop Robinson will step in to replace him~

Gridlock · 1 year ago

They'll probably hook that fat fucker up to wires and fly him over the inaugural crowd. If you clap your hands, bigots can fly.

tlsintx · 1 year ago

i might applaud for that...

Gridlock · 1 year ago

.. only if the wires snap.

Rob Mule · 1 year ago

...Folks, one sure thing all these gay subplots and such deliver are tons of fodder for the remnants of the echo chamber.
Mr. Obama's on our side and has said so in short declarative sentences. The new President has a tight rope to walk without those of us on the balance beam jumping at every imagined slight.
This moment is too historic for such petty carping...

tlsintx · 1 year ago

no worries, Prezz...i heart Obama but i gotta carp.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Obama isn't on our side till he delivers something of substance. Till then, all these little "mistakes" and about faces and slights add up, thanks.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

With respect, PD, may I just point out that you mention "every slight". There are too many slights. Something isn't right. And in my opinion we must respond. For all we know, this may just be the result of somebody on his staff. But it needs to be addressed in my opinion.

twalldallas · 1 year ago

Right....How dumb of us to forget we should just sit down like good little fags and dykes and take it. Just be glad that they even talk about us, or allow us to be seen.

You are right PE-Obama has said alot of nice things, but he hasn't done a damned thing but talk. Until then he's just another suit making promises. I hope I'm wrong, but Obama's short history has shown us where we belong in his mind.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

Obama gave us what we wanted but then turned around and put us in our places. Just like minorities in early the US 60 years ago--we should know where our "place" is. It isn't at Obama's table. The only way for this to get any better is to get the gay guys off their asses and become political--the lesbians are ahead of us. The blacks have church buses and can mobilize their votes. We gays have hangovers and aren't registered to vote anyway. Build voting around a pool party and free cocktails in the summer heat and you will get us out. Its quite pathetic.

Greensburg · 1 year ago

I'll be sure to watch the historic moment from under the bus and try not to be too petty.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

You gotta BE on the bus in order to get thrown off it. Rosa Parks was at least sittin' on the damn bus.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

The buck stops with Diane Feinstein. She and her minions decided that ER too "controversial" to be heard.

The key point: The Obamas and Bidens showed up for the concert AFTER Robinson' invocation. Even if all had gone according to plan, ER would have been praying to at least 4 empty chairs.

Are they planning on also showing up after Warren prays tomorrow?

Hmmmmmm?

Tim Bovee · 1 year ago

Well, the first slight (Rick Warren) might be just a little mistake. But two slights, so close together?

Perhaps the storyline needs to be framed like this: Is Obama truly clueless about gays, or is it just his staff?

With a sidebar on stunned gay people like me asking, "Can get a refund on my campaign contributions?"

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

I wonder about Obama's staff. Somebody is acting more and more like either a homophobe or a closeted gay homophobe. And don't forget an even earlier "slight". Donnie McClurkin.

Garygw · 1 year ago

Donnie McClurkin 2.0

gerry · 1 year ago

The first slight was at the debates with the "marriage is between a man and a woman" answer - after previously supporting marriage equality. Then it was appearing with Donnie McClurkin. Then it was allowing his debate words to be used by the Yes on Prop8 crowd without rebuttal. Then it was Rick Warren and now Bishop Robinson.

Once or twice an be attributed to mistakes, but I see a pattern here that we just don't matter all that much.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

ABC News covered the pre-inauguration events of yesterday on its evening news last evening. It included several mentions of preachers and a bit on several churches. But the only mention of Bishop Robinson was framed as a controversy, and it was not included in the piece about the various churches. Instead it came in a later segment in a very short, cheesy interview with a pastor of a "conservative" church who mentioned with disdain that he disapproved of Obama's inclusion of "an openly homosexual bishop" to give the invocation. There was no footage of the invocation or of Robinson, nor any mention of what he said during the invocation. ABC news did not present an opposing view. It was the only negative comment in any of their coverage of yesterday's events in Washington. They reduced Robinson's invocation to a negative without even mentioning what he said. It was quite infuriating.

coolcatdaddy · 1 year ago

I don't see much "change" here - this is typical of Democratic politicians the past couple of decades.

They talk the talk to the Gay community, but try to "hide" gays as part of the party.

It's not that they don't favor equality for LGBTs, it's just they fear that Gays will "scare the horses".

Sorry - this is 2009. It's not 1980 or 1970 is insulting both to LGBTs, but to Americans as a whole.

An average person is far more likely to see Gays or Lesbians in their everyday lives as one of their relatives or coworkers than they are in Democratic Party events.

Gary SF · 1 year ago

Yeah, it was the same under Bush. He invited an openly-gay priest to say a prayer and invited the Gay Men's Chorus to sing and didn't announce who they are. NOT. It is not more of the same. Also, EVERY SPEECH I have heard Obama make in this inaugural thingy includes the word gay.

nicho · 1 year ago

So? The GOP trots out minorities at every opportunity, but they are merely window dressing. There isn't one minority group that is better off because of GOP policies -- no matter how many minorities are paraded around at GOP events.

coolcatdaddy · 1 year ago

Bush didn't have to court LGBTs for their votes or money. Democrats want the support, but have difficulty expressing their support for LGBTs publicly on the same level with other constituents.

Sure, it's more progressive than Bush. But is is more progressive than the same old crap seen during the Clinton years? Think not.

Gary SF · 1 year ago

Can we move beyond this symbolic shit? I am focused upon Obama implementing ENDA, civil unions and including LGBTI's in the Federal Hate Crimes bill. I am looking for Obama to end DADT.

Keep your eyes on the prize. Don't let the symbolic stuff distract you.

nicho · 1 year ago

Please, for God's sake, do not hold your breath on any of those -- with the possible exception of DADT. They are running out of cannon fodder, so the gays will fill that bill nicely.

And, no, we can't move beyond the symbolic shit -- because the symbols point to the reality.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Our eyes aren't off the prize, but we also have peripheral vision.

Scooter in Brooklyn · 1 year ago

Hey Gary
Happy New Year. I agree. I want substance, far more than symbolism. Let's give him a few days.

Gary SF · 1 year ago

Happy New Year to you too, Scooter!

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Depends on what you consider symbolic. Honoring someone who preaches against gays and works to prevent them from marrying, while belatedly including a gay Bishop but then making him invisible goes beyond symbolism.

timncguy · 1 year ago

Obama has no authority to implement Civil Unions. Those are all done at the state level.

nicho · 1 year ago

Maybe, they should just have had Robinson do a tap dance or something and he might have gotten some air time.

And now comes the news that Obama has been calling McCain for advice on what to do:

Over the last three months, Mr. Obama has quietly consulted Mr. McCain about many of the new administration’s potential nominees to top national security jobs and about other issues — in one case relaying back a contender’s answers to questions Mr. McCain had suggested.

Mr. McCain, meanwhile, has told colleagues “that many of these appointments he would have made himself,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close McCain friend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/politics/1...

Maybe we just should have elected McCain and eliminated the middle man.

Indigo · 1 year ago

Oh, that Obama Team! They are sooo cute!
Am I allowed to call them assholes on the blog? If not, I'll stay with cute. Otherwise . . . what I said!

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

I'd never want to censor :-)

dula · 1 year ago

If there is a God it will thunder and lighting tomorrow and the Rev. Warren will be electrocuted by his mic along with anyone else who stands too close.

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

"Thou shalt not put the lord thy God to the test."

Gitai · 1 year ago

Why would Obama be worried about our support? Number one, when the GOP defines itself by homophobia, we don't have an alternative. Number two, Prop 8 pretty much proved we're shit at effecting political change.

Michelle777 · 1 year ago

Obama learned from the Jeremiah Wright incident. He can't afford to be associated with fringe extremists like either Wright or Gene Robinson. He knows the Republicans would pounce on any pictures of them seen together. Rick Warren is seen as a unifier, and Obama has applauded his work with honor and respect. On Tuesday, Obama will graciously embrace Rev Rick Warren and thank him for his family-friendly accomplishments.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Gene Robinson a fringe extremist? Why? Because he's gay?

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Robinson is fringe because he's gay? yeah, he learned his lesson well.

dula · 1 year ago

Warren is a radical Fundie freak...he equates abortion to the Holocaust, among other things.

jcgraham77 · 1 year ago

Michelle...Warren isn't compasionate. He has killed millions in Africa with his abstinence only promotions and assistance with the removal of condoms. Get your info correct. How is someone who is all inclusive such as Robinson an extremist...? The only way I see him as an extremist is that he is actually Christlike--that is extremely odd in todays church.

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

Since when is Robinson "fringe"?

John Aravosis · 1 year ago

To echo what others are writing, he's a leader of the Episcopal church. He's not fringe because he's gay.

Akaison · 1 year ago

Paging nuts party of one.

I am guessing this is snark.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

The only thing 'fringe' about Gene Robinson might be the decorations on his vestments. And extremists? What on earth are you talking about? Perhaps you don't know....

tlsintx · 1 year ago

whatacrockoshit

charybdi · 1 year ago

for my money, warren is the fringe element. depends on how (creepy) your politics are i guess.

sean · 1 year ago

i wonder if hillary's people would have done that? I mean you hated them and all, so they must be worse.

i was a hillary backer, but i'm so excited for tomorrow. and this trivial, how many gay people are there, crap, is ruining the whole thing for me. you need to be a big boy and realize that having him on the HBO thing wouldn't mean anything. who the F cares? everyone knows he was there...it was a major news item.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Uh, we care, and rightly so. We don't find it trivial, and just because you do doesn't make it reality.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Ah, who died and made you 'supreme purveyor' of all that trivial and not? I for one, am getting rather tired of being slighted, even a little, right at the start of what I was hoping for, (and worked very hard for), a new day in Washington. Sorry if you don't get it, and perhaps you don't have to. whatever.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

If the "how many gay people are there, crap" is ruining the whole thing for you, then you can understand how being repeatedly slapped in the face could ruin things for others.

ChrisSF · 1 year ago

I don't really care whether it was on HBO or somewhere else. I would just like SOME major news outlet to cover it. Right now we are stuck with a crappy cell phone cam as the permanent historical record for this amazing event. There are more (and better quality) films of the Kennedy assassination than of Gene Robinson's historic prayer, which has been in the works for MONTHS (according to the Obama people).

Bush Bites · 1 year ago

I'm awful sorry, guys.

I'm straight and some of the arguments voiced here about Obama's economic plans I think are short-sighted and unfair.

But I agree with you that this sucks.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 1 year ago

Obama needs to know about the censoring of the Bishop and the not-introducing-of-the-DCGMC. Then he needs to fire the ass of the fascist homophobe on his staff who keeps fucking us over.

pdxprobert · 1 year ago

Do you really think he doesnt know about the Bishop incident? In corporate Trans-America, everyone has a role assigned to them..its all about role-playing... i think they call them job descriptions for the record, but its just a record of what your role is and how to perform it.... they are told what their end goal is supposed to produce... the corporations are our government now... that hasnt changed.. this homophobe you are claiming exists, was just doing his assignment.. if he failed in a displeasing way, he would then leave to spend more time with his/her family or to accept a better job offer... thats the usual ruse when someone doesnt do what theyre told in that world...

Phil Ramsey · 1 year ago

Shirley hit the nail on the head. Find out who engineered this slight of hand and fire his sorry, homophobic ass. Otherwise, this stuff will continue to happen, and make us look like ineffective, stumbling, bumbling fools. Get this to Obama's attention. He needs to address this one personally, and make sure it won't happen again. .

mcd · 1 year ago

Perhaps we can skip the reading of tea leaves until he gets in office ... sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Yeah.

Once, a mistake.

Twice a coincidence.

3 times a conspiracy.

timncguy · 1 year ago

remember when he said he wasn't aware of Donnie McClurkin's views before he booked him on the gospel tour in SC? Remember when he said that McClurkin would only sing and not express his anti-gay opinions? Remember when McClurkin DID spout off his anti-gay rhetoric anyway? Remember when they included a gay minister to open the gospel show to "balance" out McClurkin? But, the gay minister spoke long before the gospel concert actually started and before most of the audience had arrived?

How many times does this crap have to happen before you realize it's not accidental?

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

True, mcd. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake. But sometimes it is more. Too many mistakes here, I'm afraid.

ChrisSF · 1 year ago

Amen. Far too many mistakes on an issue on which they should be very focused after all that has happened.

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

Jesus Christ, I've heard this defense about a dozen times now. Every time Obama and his team pulls one of these disgusting, idiotic moves that is insulting and offensive to gays someone comes out with "sometimes A mistake is just A mistake."

That's what people said after the Obama team selected ranting raving homophobe Donny McClurkin to headline a campaign event in South Carolina. That's what they said when they, in response to the backlash, brought on a gay black pastor, who was a piss poor, inarticulate attempt at a counterbalance, to lead a prayer about an hour before the event, before anyone had gotten there. That's what they said after McClurkin took the opportunity of the campaign appearance to play victim and to REPEAT his homophobic views to a cheering crowd. That's what they said when Obama meekly said that he was against Prop 8 and then went on to say, in the SAME INTERVIEW, that he supported the EXACT POSITION (AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE BUT FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND CIVIL UNIONS) that Prop 8 codified into law. That's what they said when Obama failed to select an openly gay person to serve in his United Colors of Beneton cabinet or at the highest level of staff or advisors. That's what they said when he selected the homophobe, "gay marriage is like incest, pedophilia and polygamy" Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Now it's what they are saying about not airing this HISTORIC invocation and not introducing the Washington DC Gay Men's Chorus.

Just how many times do we excuse repeated behavior as "sometimes A mistake is just A mistake"?

An_American_Karol · 1 year ago

"It is the same thing that gave me hope from the day we began this campaign for the presidency nearly two years ago; a belief that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents; Latino, Asian, and Native American; black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not - then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process."

These words resonated with the American people. It came out of Obama's mouth. He can not back away from these words. "Gay and straight" means something and sends a message of change in attitude in government toward the gay community.
Just my opinion.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

He's a politician, he can twist his own words into pretzels without anybody taking him to task.

Words are worthless. Action is priceless.

An_American_Karol · 1 year ago

I disagree. Words can make or break - words won the election for Obama and lost the election for McCain/Palin. Words lead to change.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

No, words are illusions, things to sway opinion to and fro. Actions are what count. Without action, words are merely sweet smelling air for the masses to breathe.

An_American_Karol · 1 year ago

True, but Americans know what his belief system is now. He refuted Warren's stand on Gays, even if he did not refute the man himself.

ChrisSF · 1 year ago

I remember getting goosebumps at Bill Clinton's convention speech in 1992, when he used the word "gay" for the first time ever by a presidential nominee. That was followed by Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA. Words are nice, but actions are what counts.

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

My thoughts exactly.

Obama has become an expert in throwing just enough of a bone to the gays, with his "inclusive" speeches, to shield him from an appearance of outright homophobia. As long as he "includes: the word "gay" in a speech every now and then the HRC will love him, 80% of gay people will consider him the messiah and 90% of straight "progressives" will scold and shame any gay person who speaks up when the gay community gets thrown under the bus or kicked in the nuts again by his ACTIONS.

It's through a man's ACTIONS, and NOT his words, that you truly know him.

So far this Obamabot has been EXTREMELY disappointed in what I'm getting to know about Obama.

Joel · 1 year ago

Words lead to change.

You have to say it three times, while clicking your ruby slipper heels each time.

An_American_Karol · 1 year ago

I can do that. lol

mark · 1 year ago

Shirley and Phil

I don't know the f*cktard's name who is repeatedly f*cking over LGBT's from Team Obama
but his intials are JOSHUA DUBOIS.
This is the person who heads Obama's FAITH section, he selected Closet Case self loathing Donnie McClurkin, he did interviews at SADDLEBACK Church, he is holding secret POLICY MEETINGS with some of the MOST homobigotted asswipes in the country, Klan-linked Tony Perkins FRC and Lamb at Southern Baptists.

The worse thing about Joshua...my gaydar rings OFF THE HOOK when I see him....yeah when have we seen self loathing PIGS be our worst enemies....hmmmm Karl Miss Piggy Rove, Ken Mehlman, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, David Dreier, Condi Rice, Mark Foley, Jeff Guckert/Gannon, Larry Craig, Glenn Murphy, Patrick McHenry......and the beat goes on

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Very interesting, Mark. I've been talking for some time about the appearance that someone on team Obama is either a homophobe or a closeted gay homophobe. So now you have put a name on the person for me. Thank you. Again and again decisions coming down from team Obama have had that all too familiar scent of a self-loathing closet case with political power.

taodon · 1 year ago

Is this really an issue?

Gridlock · 1 year ago

There *are* such things as stupid questions.

Joel · 1 year ago

I don't know the persons name who is repeatedly dissing LGBT's from Team Obama

Barack Obama?

truebluecoondog · 1 year ago

HBO is an entertainment outlet. They wouldn't cover pre-show stuff for a concert no matter what type of event they air.

Did CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN cover the event? If so, did THEY cover the invocation?

timncguy · 1 year ago

CNN and MSNBC both had wall-to-wall coverage of all the day's events leading up to the concert. But, they didn't bother to show Bishop Robinson either. Just another coincidence I guess.

HBO could NOT have covered Robinson even if they wanted to because the Obama team scheduled the invocation to happen BEFORE the HBO coverage began. It was intentional.

ChrisSF · 1 year ago

Interesting. As I understand it, HBO had exclusive rights to the concert. Did the other outlets feel they could not broadcast the invocation because it was part of the concert? And then HBO feels it cannot broadcast the prayer because it is part of the "warmup." This reeks of either incompetence or intentional suppression. I ask again, where is the professional quality video of this historic event that people deserve to have and to see? Does one even exist, or are we stuck with crappy cellphone camera coverage forever?

chowderSF · 1 year ago

good point

chowderSF · 1 year ago

The answer is that perhaps they should have, if in fact they did not, cover the invocation. How hard could it have been to include a few minutes extra? In a perfect world, I would say do away with all the religious stuff. But if they felt the need to 'make up' after dropping the ball with Warren by giving this spot to Robinson, they needed to go all the way......that's all.

Unclaimed and Unwanted · 1 year ago

"Oh, those gays. They just don't understand that we CAN'T look like we're friends with them, even though, of course, we are. We'll tell them that we're going to have Bishop Robinson do an invocation, too - it'll just be on Sunday, when no one is watching. Oh - even better - make sure Robinson is scheduled BEFORE the live broadcast starts; nobody will notice. Well, the homo extremists will be shrill about it, but who listens to them? Be sure to not announce the Gay Boys Chorus or whatever they are . . . "

And yet, we continue to be their patsies. I mean, they know we're outnumbered, they know we have no political alternative but to just check out (which is what BOTH sides want, anyway), so why NOT pretend to be on our side and then stab us in the back OVER and OVER and OVER again . . . There's no reason for them not to - especially if we keep COMING BACK for more punishment!

I think EVERY celebrity, every organization who participated in this should be SHUNNED for continuing this dysfunctional, codependent relationship with these so-called "progressives". YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US - THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUD.

Joel · 1 year ago

Yes indeed.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Thanks for writing this insightful post.

Michelle777 · 1 year ago

Great points. What truly amazes me is how so many people queen out and go head over heels just because Obama utters the word 'gay' in some speech. History has been re-written so that now we see Bill Clinton as some hateful and homophobic demon. Writers like Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage are sure to keep alive this meme. Instead we practically wet our pants over mere fleeting words mentioned in a speech instead of actual REAL accomplishments: http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac3...

Heed · 1 year ago

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Shrimp is an abomination too. Leviticus is a joke.

Leviticus 11:9-12:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Heed · 1 year ago

Romans 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Fine, Heed. Cast stones. And while you're at it, feel free to go out an buy a slave.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
bullet

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
bullet

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
bullet

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
bullet

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

charybdi · 1 year ago

thank you for this.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

You're most welcome. It is always my pleasure. ;0)

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

You forgot to give any biography on the man who wrote those words. You failed to mention that he also justified slavery and shamed a slave into returning to his master to beg forgiveness for running away (Philemon); that he believed and taught that ALL people SHOULD be celibate; that he believed and taught that women should be submissive to their husbands; that they should not hold positions of authority over men and that they should cover their heads and be silent in church.

I don't mind your self righteously quoting the words of an ancient sexist, misogynistic, slavery supporting homophobe. I just take exception to your selectively quoting him and failing to even minimally inform the readers here of what a bigot the man was.

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

Oh, and one more thing, supposing you identify as a Christian, why come here and quote verse after verse from Leviticus and Paul but not ONE WORD from CHRIST?

You should try reading the GOSPELS sometime. Lots of good stuff there but you probably wouldn't like it very much. Not a whole lot of "us vs. them", hate, hate, hate, sin, sin, sin, hell fire, End Days, fear and smear goin on there. Just a lot of that hippy love, peace, humility, acceptance and humanity. Kinda gay!

Maybe you should consider calling yourself and your buddies Leviticans or Paulians. It would be more accurate and, if nothing else, you could claim truth in advertising.

Heed · 1 year ago

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. (Christ's words)

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Christ also gave the sermon on the mount in which he delivered the beatitudes. However those same words were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate Christ. And if you're interested, check out the gods Mithra and Horus. They both predate Jesus by more than a thousand years. They were both born of virgins in a cave on December 25th, visited by shepherds and wise men, announced by angels, were baptized by a man who was later beheaded, had 12 disciples, walked on water, calmed the sea with a single word, healed the sick, cast out demons, were crucified between two thieves, resurrected from the dead after three days, ascended into heaven, kings of peace, lambs of god, will return again to reign for 1000 years, etc, etc, etc, with some 200 exact similarities to Jesus. And they both happened to be popular in the Roman Empire at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Check them out if you are interested where the Christian myth originated.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Heed · 1 year ago

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

A quote used by many biblical literalists to close their ears to facts and to reason. And since Mithra and Horus predate Christ by more than 1000 years, it was Christianity that came in the name of Mithra and Horus, not the other way around.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

You've quoted Matthew and Paul's letter to the Romans, apparently unaware that Paul and Matthew contradict each other.

Romans 7:6 says the law was superseded by the Christian dispensation. But Matthew 5:17-19 says the law was NOT superseded by the Christian dispensation.

Romans 2:11 says God is just and impartial. But that conflicts with both Romans 9:11-13 and Matthew 13:12 which say God is UNJUST and PARTIAL.

Paul contradicts Matthew in his letters to the Corinthians, Colossians and Philippians.

In 1 Corinthians 6:2-4 and 1 Corinthians 5:12 Paul says that judging others is allowed. But in Matthew 7: 1-2 Matthew says judging others is FORBIDDEN.

Baptism is mandatory according to Matthew 28:19. But Paul says baptism is NOT mandatory in 1 Corinthians 1:17,14

In his letter to the Colossians 3:22,23 Paul contradicts Matthew 4:10 and Matthew 23:10 by saying that we must be obedient to our masters. But he contradicts himself in his letter to the Corinthians 7:23 and agrees with Matthew by saying we must be obedient to God ONLY.

In Philippians 2:5 Paul says Christ is equal with God. But Matthew 24:36 says Jesus was NOT equal to God.


Paul contradicts himself in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 3;20 and Romans 4:2 say man is justified by faith alone. But Romans 2:13 says man is NOT justified by faith alone.

Matthew contradicts himself.

Matthew 1:17 says there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David. But Matthew 1:2-6 says there were THIRTEEN generations from Abraham to David.

Matthew 1:17 says there were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity to Christ. But Matthew 1:12-18 says there were THIRTEEN generations from the Babylonian captivity to Christ.

The good works that men do should be seen, according to Matthew 5:16. But the good works that men do should NOT be seen according to Matthew 6:1

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

Not to mention that just about every teaching, parable, proclamation and example that is attributed to Christ was lifted, sometime VERBATUM, from the teachings, parables, proclamations and examples that Siddharta Gautama (aka the Buddha) taught 500 years earlier.

The Gospels were plagerized from Buddhist Sanskrit scriptures (suttras).

The "wise men baring gifts from the east" could very well have been Buddhist monks bringing the gift of the Buddha (enlightenment) and shoe horning it in the the existing religion of Palestine. This was common practice for Buddhism at the time.

http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Very interesting. And Jesus is clearly the Judeo-Roman version of the Hindu-Persian god Mithra and the Egyptian god Horus. It's amazing that it takes the Evangelicals bashing gays with the bible to bring all this to the attention of the general public. Their attacks on gays have certainly brought to an end the days when people avoided pointing out the foibles of religion out of "respect".

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

Nice attempt at trying to sqeeze some Gospel in there after being called out on it. Too bad you had to present something completely out of context to try to make a bogus point.

Read the scripture again. Jesus was talking about the SELF-RIGHTEOUS "RELIGIOUS" people of his day (people like YOU) NOT about people considered then, and now, to be lowly sinners or open minded humanists.

In fact any intelligent, thinking, moderately educated, reasonable person who reads the Gospels (this clearly excludes Heed) would quickly realize that EVERY time Christ showed anger and contempt it was directed at those who considered themselves to be righteous, pious and religious as well as at those who were standing in self righteous judgement of the poor, the outcast and the oppressed ALL of whom they considered to be lowly sinners.

Somehow, Heed takes one of these admonishments of the self-righteous, pious and religious and tries to pass it off as an admonishment of "sinners", "free thinkers" or those who don't claim to be holy and righteous.

***Newsflash Heed***

The admonishment that you quoted was directed at the Jerry Falwells and Rick Warrens and Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of his day and NOT at the Gene Robinsons or the gay people of his day.

Your religious/biblical ignorance would be amusing, or at worst irritating, if I didn't have so much evidence of how distracting, divisive and destructive it can be when believed by masses of ignorant people looking for spiritual cover for their hate and bigotry.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

And Paul didn't come to Christ until supposedly having a vision, falling off his horse and hitting his head. I suspect he actually fell of the horse and hit his head before having the vision.

Heed · 1 year ago

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

What does Luke know? He wasn't inspired by any god, unless you think that god got a lot of things wrong. He certainly never knew Jesus. He got a bunch of hand-me-down stories that he compiled, and they don't even agree with Mathew, Mark or John, much less the old testament. It is nonsense to try to take the bible literally when it is full of contradictions. Stop looking outside yourself for answers.

The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23
The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39

Christ taught non-resistance
Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
Luke 22:36/ John 2:15

The father of Salah was Arphaxad
Gen 11:12
The father of Salah was Cainan
Luke 3:35,36

Christ preached his first sermon on the mount
Matt 5:1,2
Christ preached his first sermon on the plain
Luke 6:17,20

Two blind men besought Jesus
Matt 20:30
Only one blind man besought Him
Luke 18:35,38

The two thieves reviled Christ.
Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32
Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
Luke 23:39,40

Satan entered into Judas during the last supper
John 13:27
Satan entered into him before the last supper
Luke 22:3,4,7

There were three women who came to the sepulcher
Mark 16:1
There were more than three women who came to the sepulcher
Luke 24:10

There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher, and they were standing up.
Luke 24:4
There was only one angel seen at the sepulcher, and he was sitting down.
Matt 28:2,5

The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go into Galilee
Matt 28:10
The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
Luke 24:49

Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem
Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19
Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
Matt 28:16,17

Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
Acts 1:9,12
Christ ascended from Bethany
Luke 24:50,51

Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14
Christ's mission was not peace, but to bring the sword
Matt 10:34

Worldly prosperity is a reward of righteousness and a blessing
Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
Prov 15:6
Worldly prosperity is a curse and a bar to future reward
Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
Luke 6:24

Poverty is a blessing
Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
Riches are a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
Neither poverty nor riches are a blessing
Prov 30:8,9

A good name is a blessing
Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1
A good name is a curse
Luke 6:26

Laughter commended
Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15
Laughter condemned
Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradicti...

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Ah, yes. Romans. We all know how trustworthy Romans is. Not only is Romans contradicted again and again by other parts of the bible, It even contradicts itself.

Romans 8:38,39 says It is impossible to fall from grace. John 10:28 agrees. But 2nd Peter 2:20,21 and Ezekiel 18:24 and Hebrews 6:4-6 say it IS possible to fall from grace.

Romans 3:10 says that no man is without sin, and 1 Kings 8:46 and Proverbs 20:9 and Ecclesiastes 7:20 agree. But 1 John 3: 9,6,8 says that Christians are SINLESS.

Romans 13:1-3,6 says it is our duty obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and only punish evil doers. But that is contradicted by Acts 4:26,27 as well as Mark 12:38,39,40 and Luke 23:11,24,33,35 as well as Exodus 1:17,20 and Daniel 3:16,18 and Daniel 6:9,7,10, all of which say it is NOT our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and are damned for it.

And then there is Romans 1:20 that says God's attributes are revealed in his works. But then Job 11:7 and Isaiah 40:28 both say that God's attributes CAN NOT be discovered.

And who did Christ lay down his life for? Romans 5:10 says he laid down his life for his enemies. But John 15:13 John 10:11 both say he laid down his life for his friends.

Is God peaceful? Yes, according to Romans 15:33 and Ist Corinthians 14:33. But NO, according to Exodus 15:3 and Isaiah 51:15 which describe God as warlike.

Romans 7:6 says the law was superseded by the Christian dispensation, and Luke 16:16 and Ephesians 2:15 both agree. But Matthew 5:17-19 says the law was NOT superseded by the Christian dispensation

Then there's the notion that man is justified by faith alone according to Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:2, as well as Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 3:11,12. But this is contradicted by Romans 2:13 as well as James 2:21,24, both of which say man is NOT justified by faith alone. So here you have a case of Romans contradicting Romans!

Honestly, how can anyone take scripture as fact? The book gives two contradictory versions of how the Earth was created, for heaven's sake. And Noah's arc? Really! A fine fairytale for a group of ignorant desert people who were unaware of how large the Earth is and how many species it contained. But don't try to take this stuff literally. It doesn't work.

Blueflash · 1 year ago

You are good!

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Glory be to Google. ;0)

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Who farted?

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

When you beat your unruly children to death, sell you daughter into slavery, stone all the adulterers, kill all the eaters of pork, shrimp, catfish, shark, oysters, lobster, (ALSO an abomination), when you stop wearing clothes of mixed fabrics (ALSO an abomination) and when you slay all those who work or play on Saturdays (including all NFL players and fans) THEN and only then am I going to concern myself with your self-righteous, selective and ignorant quotations from ancient Hebrew scripture.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

ie: Jebus will take care of the judging, keep your trailer trash face shut till the Rapture.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Practice what you preach,

Leviticus 11:10 says that eating shellfish is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:27 says magicians must be stoned to death.

Leviticus 20:10 says if a man commits adultery with a neighbor, both must die.

Leviticus 20:17 says that if a man sees his sister naked, both must be executed in public.

Leviticus 25:44 says that a man may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations or from strangers. And the slaves may be left to his children in his will. (Bad news for abolitionists)

Leviticus 15:19-24 says that a man may have no contact with a woman while she is menstruating. And if she goes out in public during her monthly period, she must shout out the word "unclean".

Leviticus 20:18 says that if a man sleeps with a woman who is menstruating, both of them must be outlawed from their people.

Leviticus 23:3 says that you must not work on the Sabbath, i.e., Saturday for Jews, Sunday for Christians. It must be a day of complete rest. (Exodus 35:2 says that anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.)

Leviticus 27:2-4 says that a man's value is fifty silver shekels, and a woman's value is thirty.

Leviticus 19:26 says that you may not eat anything with blood in it.

Leviticus 12:1-5 says that if a woman gives birth, she is unclean and may not go to church for forty-one days -- sixty-six days if the child is a girl.

Leviticus 20:9 says anyone who curses his parent must die.

Leviticus 21:20 says that no one may approach the altar of God if they have defective eyesight.

Leviticus 19:27 says that men may not trim the edges of their beard nor round off the edges of their hair.

Leviticus 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. (Bad news for football players)

Leviticus 19:19 says that you may not wear two different types of fiber in your clothing, nor plant two different crops in the same field. (Bad news for gardeners wearing cotton/polyester blend)

Leviticus 26:1 forbids setting up carved images and statues.

Leviticus 15:28-30 says that eight days after a woman's monthly period ends she must take two turtledoves to the priest to be sacrificed.

Leviticus 19:32 says you must stand up when someone with grey hair approaches.

Leviticus 24:10-16 says that if anyone blasphemes, the townspeople must stone them to death.

Leviticus 18:18 says that a man may not take into his harem two women who are sisters. The second sister can only join his harem after the first sister dies.

Leviticus 19:34 says if a stranger lives in your land you must treat him as one of your own countrymen. (Bad news for anti-immigration Republicans)

Leviticus 20:14 says that if someone sleeps with their in-laws, they must be burned to death.

Leviticus 11:4-8 says you may not eat camel, rabbit or pork.

Leviticus 21:20 says hunchbacks and dwarfs may not be ministers.

Leviticus 11:35 says that if a dead rodent touches your oven, it must be destroyed. (Not the rodent. The oven.)

ndn · 1 year ago

John,
The national anthem was not aired either. In some parts of the country that is treason. You need to learn how to pick your battles. You are in danger of becoming the gay Jesse Jackson or the gay Al Sharpton. I thought black people were hypersensitive... jeesh.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Wow, you don't even try to hide your racism. Very ugly trait.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

There are a lot of people who think we gay folks are being hyper-sensitive on this issue. I happen to disagree with them strongly. But I don't resort to calling them homophobes simply because they think we are being hypersensitive.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Not sure if you are addressing me calling out this posters racist comment or the posters' comment.....

mirth · 1 year ago

RitornaVincitor,

I'm straight and I do not see this as just a Gay issue. All citizens should be hyper-sensitive when they see equality and justice and fair play denied to their fellow citizens.

Last night I wrote my hope that Robinson's snub was some sort of snafu, maybe a sound system malfunction. Surely Obama's team could not be involved. I had almost convinced myself of it.

I was wrong.

This makes two very bad decisions by the Obama team - first Warren and now Robinson - and a possible explanation of "reaching out" or merely poor judgement by the transition team evaporated with #2.

Yes, Gays should be very angry. But that anger should be and is shared by all lovers of human rights.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

I agree with you, Mirth. I was just talking about calling people names simply because they disagree.

mirth · 1 year ago

I knew what you meant and I was glad you wrote it.

My intent is to acknowledge our commonality and that all people of good heart and good citizenship are in this together, in this fight for the beautiful and necessary things of equality and justice.

And your comment gave me that opportunity.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

Oh, I get it. Sorry I misunderstood.

I'm so looking forward to tomorrow. It's unfortunate about Warren, and it will be very interesting to see if he can manage to get through his invocation without creating more controversy. But that aside, it is so good to finally see this day about to dawn.

Michelle777 · 1 year ago

Ndn, your racist comments goes directly against everything Obama is trying to accomplish. Barack found it necessary to distance himself from Rev Wright as well as Rev Robinson. Obama has every right to reject those who preach a divisive message or one demanding special rights.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Hey Michelle, have to ask....who is demanding special rights? and what would those be? You have me wondering....?

tlsintx · 1 year ago

ah...special rights...
sorry - you're wrong. wrong wrong wrong.

Rick Warren is the divisive one, dear.

Gridlock · 1 year ago

special rights like equality?

Special rights like hate crime legislation protection (which many people and organizations enjoy)?

Which special right would we be demanding?

Topher · 1 year ago

I have always wondered what these "special rights" are. I've been around for a while, too, and I can't recall any "special right" ever being articulated by either side.

KarenMrsLloydRichards · 1 year ago

An Army Sergeant, African-American, sang the National Anthem at the start of the concert. I saw it on HBO.

Milli · 1 year ago

I'm pissed about Warren, but this seems more like it could be a time issue rather than a "political" one. I'm wondering what else was considered part of the pre-show and therefore excluded from the broadcast.

And personally, I'm pissed that HBO was anointed to broadcast this in the fist place. Open access inauguration? Um, not if you only allow pay channels the rights to it.

Blueflash · 1 year ago

Isn't the inaugural committee now saying that Robinson was just part of the "pre-show"? Is that an Orwellian way of saying he was invited but not really invited? It's almost beginning to look sadistic how the Obama team smacks us around.

Milli · 1 year ago

Really, I don't think this is some Orwellian plot. Robinson was just speaking on CNN. They are apparently letting him roam around talking to people and not confining him to a dungeon.

As for Obama smacking us around, I'm reserving judgement until he gets in office. All of this speculation about what he truly feels is just that. Obama has pledged that he will overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If he fails - then he's a weak-willed hypocrite. But this HBO thing? No, I'm not reading into it yet.

pdxprobert · 1 year ago

This is politics... if the supposed leadership of the LGBT community are smart, they'll know they need to cozy up to Rahmbo if they want any successes... ps - Rahmbo's mother made him take ballet.. and he was good enough to be offered a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet.. but he turned it down and got a masters in speech instead..... for Christ's sake, if we can't find something in common with the man, then the leadership trying to get access to Obama better turn their FAG cards back in...

Blueflash · 1 year ago

How exactly are we to "cozy up to Rahmbo"? Offer him free tickets to Swan Lake? If he is part of the problem then chances are his risk analysis regarding the gay community ossified years ago and there's not much we can do now to change it. He's not exactly a babe in the woods.

pdxprobert · 1 year ago

How do other people/orgs get access to the president?... What do they offer that gets them approved... thats what the chief of staff does, he determines who gets access and who doesnt... so there has to be a qualifier... i would think what gets the Rick Warrens and the Pat Robertsons of the world their access, is the number of votes they represent?.. Rahmbo also knows we wont vote for the other side regardless.. but the evangelical vote can swing...

isn't it the job of the political organizations trying to gain access to find out what it takes.. and sometimes it takes a turn down to find out what you were short on....... maybe they could start with Michelle.... PS - lots of court appointments are going to be made... what is more important? watching some religious guy pontificate about belief in a holy trinity and the power of a myth based belief system (you know the one that some will do anything to ensure Armegeddon happens), or people that review laws and decide cases? sometimes, its the most quiet of the seekers that gets the best rewards... try selling that to all the Stella's or is it Stanley's, that post on this board..

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

What about the producer, George Stevens, Jr.? Anyone ask him about this? Weren't there a few politicians who spoke after Robinson's invocation, too?

And who is going to profit from the DVDs they're sure to sell of this event?

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

I wonder if the Obama team also told HBO to avoid introducing the Washington D. C. Gay Men's Chorus?

For all of you who are saying stupid things like, "but they didn't air the National Anthem either" or "they don't usually air pre festivities", get a freakin clue. This wasn't ANY old person and it wasn't ANY old occassion and it wasn't ANY old time. This was the FIRST openly gay bishop in the world, this was the FIRST openly gay person to speak at an inaugural event, this was the FIRST openly gay faith leader to lead a prayer at a national event, and it was supposed to be the BALANCE to the anti-gay Rick Warren in an event that is being billed as bringing people of different views together.

So far the anti-gay representitives are being well represented and I have no doubt that they will get full television coverage on ALL networks covering the event. So the lesson here is: first black this, news worthy; first woman that, news worthy; first latino the other thing, news worthy; fifteen millionth anti-gay pastor on a national stage, news worthy; first out gay man to do anything at this event? NOT newsworthy and anyone upset about it should sit down and STFU.

It's amazing that every step of this Rick Warren fuck job the gay community has been told that they are over reacting, that NOTHING is nefarious, and that they should shut up and be grateful for all the times that Obama has said the word "gay" in a speech. Even after this slight there are all these "progressives" here who see nothing whatsoever amiss.

I for one am glad that there are finally gay people who WON'T sit down and who WON'T just shut the fuck up and take it, and who WON'T be satisfied with being treated like shit as long as we're not arrested.

It's time to say ENOUGH! It's time to demand our rights, to demand respect and to demand recognition.

No more fucking Mr. and Miss Nice Gay and if YOU can't deal with it then it's time for YOU to sit down and shut the fuck up for a change.

RitornaVincitor · 1 year ago

BRAVO!! BRAVO!!

chowderSF · 1 year ago

THANK YOU, for posting this, this is exactly what has been in my head, but I have not been able to get it out, and you said it perfectly......whew.

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

None of the other choruses were identified either though. Except for the navy.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

And your point is......?

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

My point is that it's not indicative of a larger conspiracy to hide us.

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

NONE of the other choruses were HISTORIC as being the first of their kind to perform at such an event. NONE of the other choruses, that I'm aware of, were a FIRST.

Do you not understand the difference or the significance?

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

Well Obama clearly sees us as a social issue, so...

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

so...?

So what?

Please complete your thought because I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

We're not a "social issue". We are American citizens who are not afforded the full rights, respect and recognition that is due us.

We need to stop acting as if people are doing us a favor by allowing us to have things that SHOULD already be ours.

Our govenment doesn't "give" people or minorities their rights. They simply, at some point or another, acknowledge that a minority has been denied their rights (rights that were ALREADY THEIRS) and they stop WITHOLDING them.

We really have to change the way we look at civil rights and those who are denied them in this country and around the world.

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

Obviously I know we're not a social issue, but that's how many people see us. We have to look at all the facts. Besides, the latest evidence is starting to suggest that HBO has most of the responsibility for this.

Blueflash · 1 year ago

Quite right. Being meek and submissive never got the ear of a politician.

HarpoSnarx · 1 year ago

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

Blueflash · 1 year ago

I wonder to what extent we're still living the legacy of the "gays in the military" fiasco at the start of Clinton's first term. If so then the Obama administration is overly spooked and really underestimates the extent to which this is a less homophobic country than it was then. The only voters who would have been particularly upset by seeing Robinson and knowing he's gay are the dyed-in-the-wool homophobes who'll never support a Democrat anyway. Don't mean to underestimate the real homophobia that's still out there but a gay bishop giving some anodyne pre-inaugural address just isn't that horrifying any longer to most Americans, in my opinion. I've heard rumors about Rahm Emmanuel - that he really regards the gay community as a liability. Don't know if they're valid.

mark · 1 year ago

I'm certain NEITHER Rick Warren or Reverand Lowery will get any network coverage tomorrow either...so it's all good

Topher · 1 year ago

I hope you're right, but I have a feeling we're going to see RW ready for his high-def, prime-time close-up tomorrow. Wouldn't be shocked if O is present when he prays and even directly aknowledged by RW.

RainbowPhoenix · 1 year ago

This could be an opportunity for us. More ammo to use when it comes time to push for policy change.

James McConnell · 1 year ago

Shorter Obama:
"GO BACK INTO THE FUCKING CLOSET, now that we have your votes...and your money....and your shoe leather. Basically, your disgust and embarrass me. I'm doing you all a favor by preparing you for what is to come. I'm trying to lower your rediculous expectations. Tom Daschole and Rahm told me to. Did you really think that I, the Great One, would ever treat you as anything but subhuman?"

fredndallas · 1 year ago

I think Michelle777 has it pegged right. Robinson's participation was structured so that there was NO possibility of Ego Obama having to face Robinson, having to encounter Robinson, having to be seen with Robinson, having the possibility of a photo with Robinson, having a television camera shot with Robinson.

That the only way to accomplish that was to also deep six Robinson from any significant media coverage at all was just the price to be paid to insure Barack Obama's essential shield. Our new President has a personal emotional sense of vulnerability about sexual identity and it is showing itself in his otherwise inexplicable actions that contradict all he says he stands for.

Yet he is smart and probably has some moral compunction against continuing to deprive GLBT of equal rights. This sets up an internal tug of war in Obama that leaves our community baffled, insulted and harmed.

Our best chance of progress with this administration is to be effective in shaming the Ego President by challenging and exposing his obvious contradictory behavior about GLBT equality. We all need to do any and every thing we can to accomplish that.

Probably each of us has encountered someone is our life (friend?, family?) who was really quite accepting of us -- AS LONG AS NOBODY SAW IT HAPPENING. That's where Obama is at, I think. It is sad and proves he has some personal homophobia, but it also may portend room for progress and growth -- in him -- and for us.

TampaZeke · 1 year ago

Exactly!

Let's not forget that the Obama team went out of their way to make sure that Gavin Newsome didn't get within 100 feet of Obama when he visited San Francisco to raise cash (a LOT of it from gays). It was leaked from inside the campaign that Obama and his team were scared to death of a photograph with Obama and Newsome in the same room making it into the press.

chowderSF · 1 year ago

Wow, I forgot that little factoid.....that really does suck......this whole episode leaves me deflated feeling inside,,,,,when I was really feeling huge and inspired.....big ole drag....

Joel · 1 year ago

Yet he is smart and probably has some moral compunction against continuing to deprive GLBT of equal rights. This sets up an internal tug of war in Obama that leaves our community baffled, insulted and harmed.

You are right, Obama is smart, but I don't think he has any compunction over depriving the GLBT of equal rights, if Obama had, then the first bit of expectations being managed would not have been us serving in the military. Where Obama is "smart" is in saying the right things to gain support of progressives and the GLBT community while doing the right things to maintain support of his religious friends.

Obama says, "I personally don't believe in it" when discussing gay marriage. This is the best gauge of Obama's commitment to equality and his compunction over continuing to deny our rights. When someone personally is not committed in the slightest, as Mr. Obama is, then there is no compunction.

There is no reason for Obama to progress or grow in this area either. Obama took note of the Prop 8 vote and he knows where America stands and Obama is not going to put his political success on the line for us.

HarpoSnarx · 1 year ago

Ah yes the ole death by a thousand little slights.

If its Hphobe, I say FRY their asses.