A while back I wrote a post about Kelvin Robinson's endorsement by the National Organization for Marriage. But as more information began to come out I became less sure about where exactly Mr. Robinson, who is running against Tommy Wells for the Ward 6 seat, stood, and how he came to be endorsed by the group. He seemed to me to always talk around the question when it came up in forums. So I contacted his campaign, and after exchanging some emails, they sent me a good clean answer that I think could help clear up some confusion. Here's what they sent me:
As for the "NOM endorsement", as I told Debonis: I have never met anyone from the organization, nor filled out any candidate's questionnaire or participated in any candidate interviews with this organization. My guess is that both opponents and proponents, alike, made assumptions about my views based purely on my association with Catholic Charities, the statements about my concern regarding the language of the current law, and my statement about a vote, which was taken out of context, without ever bothering to speak with me directly about the issue. Instead, blogs and listservs have run a muck, allowing "no political statements", except those it seems that would serve to support my opponent. Even when some comments were allowed, it only served to provide yet another opportunity for folks to keep the lies alive.
In any event, when I became aware of the so-called endorsement and the lie that I had 'taken money from NOM", reported by Mike Debonis, I immediately contacted him to print a retraction, which he did, after he investigated the claim and found that it was GLAA, Bob Summersgill, that put this erroneous information out, noting that they had confused me with Rev. Motley, who was until recently, a candidate for At-Large Council. Of course, the word had gone out far and wide...although I cant say the same for any retractions or corrections.
As noted previously, such is the nature of politics, which is why as a candidate I must remain focused and not get side-tracked on falsehoods, innuendos and flat out lies! This issue is settled, and as I have stated time and again, I support the law and will do nothing to overturn it.
21 comments:
So where does he say he supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry? Fine, he did not take money from NOM but he still dances around the subject of gay marriage.
2:42-- I was thinking the SAME thing!!
Kelvin Robinson -- great, you didn't take money from an intolerant orgainization. But where do you stand on gay marriage?
Seriously, can you guys read or what? Read the last sentence of the freaking statement! 'I support the law and will do nothing to overturn it.' Is it the support or the law or the overturn it part that you don't understand?
Paul - Sorry! You're right. I was so annoyed that wasn't said upfront that my reading fizzled out by the end of the statement.
Paul, I have gone to 2 forums where this question has come up. From my stand point, it seems like he can not even say the words "gay marriage" or "gays have the right to enter into marriage". It seems to me that he is doing damage control because this issue is following him every where he goes. As a lesbian, I don't want a ward representative to "support a law", I want a representative who sees gays and lesbians as equal to everyone else, and that we should have the same rights. That person should be willing to say he supports the gay community loud and proud and not couch the language. I can say I support a law but it does not mean that I think it is right or fair.
Sounds like he wants to continue being a bigot and would if it were legal but gosh darnit he just can't because now it's actually against the law.
Darn those equality laws. Makes it hard to practice hate openly.
And 'doing nothing to overturn the law' doesn't really preclude him as a Councilman from trying to undermine it, with everything from overly broad 'religious exemptions' to procedural roadblocks to it's full implementation in things like provision of city services, probate, etc.
Dear sweet Lord - won't anyone state the obvious campaign slogan for him? "A Vote for Kelvin is a vote for an Absolute Zero".
Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I would be at the Pug through Sunday but TonyT kicked me out.
no offense to you all, but what happened to representing the majority of your constituents. only the most tiny minority of ward 6 residents have an interest in entering into a gay marriage. this issue is so far down the list of quality of life issues in ward 6 that it is INSANE to use it as a litmus test for who to support. I think I may have to leave this country soon. Clearly common sense has left already...
So when you all get mugged in your bike lane with your new gay husband by a teenager who fell between the cracks during Wells' subpar oversight of DC youth services, will you be happy with your vote then?
If we don't do something with the social services infrastructure in this city, we'll always retain a huge dysfunctional underclass that will keep Ward 6 from being "livable and walkable" no matter how many new sidewalks get put in.
Personally I'd prefer for Wells and Robinson to debate substantive issues facing the ward
I have not met one person that said to me "Everything in Ward 6 is perfect EXCEPT the long shot possibility that someone might repeal the gay marriage law".
What planet do you all live on?
So that mugging teenager who fell through the cracks, is he a child from a family that allowing gay marriages would destroy? Politics is so great now because more and more voters have single issue litmus tests for candidates and there are more and more folks missing the bigger picture. This issue shouldn't even be a discussion. The wierdos and the morally insecure make same sex marriage a talking point and those damn gays have to respond. It's a cliche, but if you're against same sex marriage, marry the opposite sex and move on.
Seriously, how hard is it to get kicked out of the pug?
tonyt
"only the most tiny minority of ward 6 residents have an interest in entering into a gay marriage. this issue is so far down the list of quality of life issues in ward 6 that it is INSANE to use it as a litmus test for who to support. I think I may have to leave this country soon."
While it's true that the majority of residents of Ward 6 aren't straight, I'd say a great many of them are quite sympathetic to their gay friends and to the basic idea that we are all equal and all deserve the benefits of our tax dollars, thousands of which are tied specifically to marriage.
So while you personally may not care that tens of thousands of DC residents do or do not have equality, many of us do.
In a more general sense, I like to know of my elected officials believe in fundamental equality for all, whether it's gays, women, racial or religious minorities, etc.
The fact that Robinson clearly has a problem with gay issues speaks volumes about his character.
The fact that he won't man up and actually admit that he has a problem speaks even louder. If he is this evasive on a major social issue in the campaign can we really expect him to be forthright while in office?
See what i mean, there's a segment of society who believe dinosaurs walked with men and same sex marriage is a danger to the fabric of society. Then some smart alecky gay is forced to give a level headed response leaving the troglodytes looking a little foolish.
tonyt
the pug.
I love it when my straight "friends" care more about my gay right to marry than I do. As a lesbian I care more about the capability to safely walk down the street. I think Tommy Wells is more interested in giving tax breaks to developers and giving DC $$$ to the social service industrial complex, rather than really helping kids and families.
@8:50
Obviously, the gay marriage debate is not about whether any one individual cares about the rights that have been granted or denied to their group. Personally, I don't care about my right to free exercise of religion, but that does not make the First Amendment any less important to society. In short, this isn't about you.
Your statement that "Tommy Wells is more interested in giving tax breaks to developers and giving DC $$$ to the social service industrial complex, rather than really helping kids and families" is unfair and inaccurate. Care to elaborate?
So if a candidate said that he did not believe in equal rights for African Americans but was committed to reducing crime it would OK to vote for him then. The thing about a democracy is that we have the choice to vote for whoever we want for whatever reasons. I care about crime and "real issues" such as school quality, development, small business issues, infrastructure issues and the social services the district provides. However, someone who sees me as a second class citizen is not someone who represents me. Again I go back to my hypothetical, If a candidate was racist or believed women should not work, should I as an African American woman vote for him because he gives better talking points on issues such as crime.
As I said in a earlier post I have gone to forums and listened to both candidates somewhat comment on other issues (questions have not touched on some hard issues). I have not been thrilled by either candidate responses. I have emailed them both and gotten canned bullet points. So in the absence of confidence in either person, I am going to go with the person who will not water down a law I care about. Other people can vote for who they want based on the things they care about because that is their choice.
This is the main reason I will not vote for Robinson: his only critique of Wells has been that Wells concentrates on "gentrifier" issues to the exclusion of the concerns of "real DCians". Marriage Equality is a perfect example of this. Robinson sees it as some sort of frippery. A distraction from the "real" council work of "fighting crime" and delivering jobs to the poor.
In my opinion, these are *exactly* the sorts of issues that the council addresses most effectively: specific, targeted, small-bore issues.
Meanwhile, Robinson's spouting platitudes about how he's going to solve unemployment, and make it so impoverished teens with no supervision will never commit another crime.
Frankly, it's moonbeams & BS.
This is the main reason I will not vote for Robinson: his only critique of Wells has been that Wells concentrates on "gentrifier" issues to the exclusion of the concerns of "real DCians". Marriage Equality is a perfect example of this. Robinson sees it as some sort of frippery. A distraction from the "real" council work of "fighting crime" and delivering jobs to the poor.
In my opinion, these are *exactly* the sorts of issues that the council addresses most effectively: specific, targeted, small-bore issues.
Meanwhile, Robinson's spouting platitudes about how he's going to solve unemployment, and make it so impoverished teens with no supervision will never commit another crime.
Frankly, it's moonbeams & BS.
How long do you have to live in DC before you're a real DCian? How many years is enough?
If you're with someone who's been in DC much, much longer than you, do you both qualify as real DCians? Or does the other person have that status, while you're still a probationary DCian?
(just in case -- oboe, this is not aimed at you in the slightest. you used the term, but you used it to refer to others who classify people so.)
Kelvin... absolute zero... I can't be the only chemistry nerd here. I think it's funny.
@curmudgeon:
If you have to ask, you're a "newcomer". Otherwise, "old-timer".
:)
What is with this weird smear campaign against Kelvin Robinson?
The author of the post, who is very credible, says she was taken in by false charges about Robinson's position on DC's gay marriage law, got a response from Robinson that demonstrates as much, as Robinson has stated clearly in three different candidate forums that he supports current law, will not support any efforts to overturn current law, and has been a victim of GLAA's Summersgill libel.
Summersgill is still doing it! Summersgill posts one video that proves Robinson says he opposes efforts by Congress to overturn gay marriage in DC in the strongest possible way then Summersgill claims Robinson said the opposite (I guess Summersgill was counting on no one watching the video he posted).
Then Summersgill tries to claim Robinson did not state simply and clearly his support for current law in the Defeat Poverty DC debate, and then shrugs as if to say we'll never know because there is no video of the Defeat Poverty DC debate.
Of course there is video of that debate, and of course it proves again that Summersgill is lying.
Read and watch how Summersgill tries to pull the wool over our eyes as it relates to Robinson. Check out the comments section.
http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2010/09/robinson-im-nicer-than-you-think.html
Why is Summersgill STILL trying to pull the okey-doke on me? Why is Kelvin Robinson the victim of a smear campaign?
Post a Comment