Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
secrecy

Is the White House Scared of Retaliation Against Its Gay Pride Guests?

The Supreme Court refused to let cameras in the Prop 8 courtroom because of alleged fears of retaliation against supporters of the gay marriage ban. The justices are about to rule on whether the names that helped put Referendum 71 on the ballot in Washington State can be disclosed, as required by law, or whether fears of retaliation are enough to keep them anonymous in a democracy. And now it’s the White House abandoning its supposed mission of transparency to shield the guests at yesterday’s LGBT Pride reception, hosted by the president. How come?

Ever since the reception was announced, the White House has refused to release the names it invited. Which is a silly thing to do, since the RSVP list — which apparently didn’t include Rep. Barney Frank — will be a matter of a public record in a few months once the White House releases its visitor logs, and you can be sure Micheal Petrelis will be hunting through them.

We already know a couple of the names who were on it (Chely Wright, Constance McMillen) and who were not (Joe Solmonese). But why delay the rest? It’s a purposeful move to stave off any potential controversy and nitpicking over the list while the news cycle is still hot; when the names are made public later this summer or fall, fewer people will care who went, and even this website will have moved on. But certainly Obama’s camp, and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, aren’t keeping the names private because of safety concerns. Right?

By:           Ryan Tedder
On:           Jun 23, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 7 Comments
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      Am fairly certain the guy with the pink camera is a Gay…. :-p

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Storm
      Storm

      Wow, Chely Wright’s gay for two weeks and already gets a trip to the White House! What a deal!

      And you’ve got to love the tidal wave of iphones.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jane
      Jane

      NO women in the picture.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sceth
      Sceth

      To the far right there is a white device; in the photo, something which seems to be a woman’s hair is visible below it. To the far left is a black-backed device whose screen is not shown; another woman is below that.

      Whoever is holding the pink device is also quite short, and thus likely a woman.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Derrick Mathis
      Derrick Mathis

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: LMAO!!!

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • curtainface
      curtainface

      There are three women in that picture.

      Jun 24, 2010 at 5:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY wrote, “Ever since the reception was announced, the White House has refused to release the names it invited.” … which is reasonable given that there is not room for everyone and you don’t want to embarrass people by making it obvious that they were not invited.

      The visitor logs, BTW, show who was there, not who was invited and couldn’t make it due to other commitments.

      Jun 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.