During our conversation, Robinson, who at Pres. Obama's invitation gave the invocation during a January inaugural event held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, also said that in the gay community "patience is wearing thin" with the president for not acting to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' among other issues. We also discussed the pairing of Election 2000 attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies to battle the CA gay marriage ban -- and the possible pitfalls involved in carrying that fight prematurely to the Supreme Court.

Our interview:

JS: You testified before New Hampshire lawmakers to advocate for the gay marriage bill that was passed last week by the state House and Senate, and I'm curious, broadly to start, what you think of New Hampshire's decision to become the sixth state to allow gay marriage.

GR: It's very exciting to have walked this bill all the way through. To a lot of people it seemed a bit of a tortuous journey. But in the end, I think we took a really good tact -- and that was true of the House, the Senate and the governor -- which was to restate what was already true in the law, but people needed to be reassured about it. Which was to restate the protections for religious institutions not to have to participate in same-gender marriages if they didn't want to and if it went against their beliefs. And I believe that that freed a lot of people, who are not even necessarily at all comfortable with the notion of gay marriage, to support this bill for what it is, which is an action of the state, not of the church.

And I argued that indeed for religious institutions to impose their will against the secular state was an imposition of the church on the state. We're normally worried about the state impinging on the rights of religion, but in this case I believe it was religion impinging on the rights of the state. And that seemed to win the day. And I couldn't be more delighted.

JS: So you're supportive of the changes? I know that Gov. John Lynch had said that he personally believes that marriage is between a man and woman, but this is a compromise that he felt was suitable and that would represent where public opinion is and where lawmakers are on this issue. Do you sense that your colleagues across various faiths are supportive of the changes that were implemented?

GR: The fact of the matter is that the changes that the governor proposed did not put anything into place that was not already guaranteed under the law. I think it was a political move on his part to create the illusion that he was carving out some compromise middle ground. But in fact what he was demanding was a statement and a restatement and indeed an overstatement of what was already true so as to assure religious people who oppose this that they would not have to participate in ways that violated their consciences.

So I think that was more of a political decision on his part. I know that when I talked to him his issue was not so much gay marriage, but it was the fact that he believes that in the fight over civil unions two years ago that he had said to the voters if you support me on this it will go no further. And therefore to support gay marriage was a reneging on his promise to the voters two years ago. I pointed out to him that there has been a tremendous shift in public opinion about this issue in the last two years. In fact the latest poll in April of this year showed 70 percent of all voters in New Hampshire being in favor of gay marriage, including 30 percent of all Republicans. And I think his change of heart on this was based on the fact that public opinion is really moving very, very fast on this issue. Not just here in New Hampshire, but I think across the country.

JS: Are you surprised that the once solidly Republican Granite State is somewhat out front on this issue nationally? What are you seeing on the ground there that accounts for the change in public opinion?

GR: While New Hampshire, I think, is rightly viewed as a conservative state, what most people don't understand is that more than conservative, it is a Libertarian state. And the fact of the matter is we had arguably the best gay rights law on the books in the nation, and had it before many other much more liberal states had it. Not necessarily because everyone was sympathetic to gay and lesbian people, but because a vast majority of people in New Hampshire believe that the government should stay out of your life. And that you ought to be able to live your life the way you want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. And so, in an odd sense, it makes a lot of sense that New Hampshire voters would support this. There are conservative people here who don't at all feel kindly about gay and lesbian people but who would fight to the death to allow us to live our lives the way we want.

JS: We saw the 2000 election lawyers -- Ted Olson and David Boies -- join forces to fight the California gay marriage ban in court. Many who have been advocating for equal rights for gays and lesbians for some time believe the court is the wrong place to wage this battle and that the states present more fertile options. Do you agree with that? And also what your reaction is to the Olson/Boies pairing?

GR: Well it's an odd couple, that's for sure. In years past, in talking with Lambda Legal Defense and HRC (Human Rights Campaign) about this, there's been great concern that this issue would reach the Supreme Court too soon. Because the history of the court tends to indicate that the court will not do something new and sort of revolutionary until about a third of the country has already made that move on a local basis. And so the people who know the most about this have actually been discouraging people from bringing cases that would ultimately go to the Supreme Court for fear that it would go too soon, that the Supreme Court would rule against and then we would be stuck with the much harder fight to overturn a precedent.

And, you know, I don't know when this would reach the Supreme Court. My understanding is that it would still have to start locally and work its way up through the federal system. So it may be two or three years before it gets to the court, that is to say the Supreme Court, and that in that two or three years that shift will have occurred. Certainly if New York and California were to legalize gay marriage say by the end of 2010, at least population wise that would probably constitute a third of the population of the country -- even if not a third of the states themselves.

So I think the jury is out on whether this is the wisest thing to do. But it certainly is a very interesting proposition that these two lawyers on quite opposite ends of the spectrum would agree that this is an issue whose time has come. And so it remains to be seen how successful that will be. I'm still a little nervous about it coming to the Supreme Court before we are assured of a positive verdict.

JS: Let me ask you about Pres. Obama. There's much consternation bubbling up in the gay community that he's not visible on issues of interest to the community. Many say, for example, they'd like him to do more in trying to retract the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. And yet he's been awfully quiet since taking office on this and other issues. Do you feel like he's losing some goodwill among gays and lesbians?

GR: I think that a number of us are beginning to be impatient with him. The argument that he's got other things on his plate really doesn't hold water since he has certainly demonstrated an ability to multitask and to tackle very, very important issues at the same time. Also, I just saw a poll -- I think it was yesterday or the day before -- showing enormous support for an end to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' even amongst the military, even amongst conservatives, amongst Republicans, not to mention the general public. I still believe that he is going to move forward on that and on the Defense of Marriage Act and so on, but I do think patience is wearing thin, and I think it's time for him to begin to give this some of his time and energy.

I know that he's put together a study committee around 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and I don't think he would have done that if he hadn't been assured of what the verdict would be. I don't know when they are due to report, but certainly when they do would be an opportune time for him to act. I think he did that so as not to fall within the same danger zone that Bill Clinton did when he tried to do it by fiat.

JS: But politically, what's holding him back at this point. He has such an enormous mandate for his agenda and the Democrats so dominate Washington. Why do you think he's holding back?

GR: I have no idea. I don't think there is anything politically to be lost here. And I think it would only solidify his base of support in the gay and lesbian community. ... We're not asking him at this point to be open in his support of gay marriage. We're talking about a couple policies whose time really has come to be over.

JS: You and your longtime partner, Mark Andrew, were joined in a civil union this year. Will you marry?

GR: Yes, we will.

JS: Will there be a big party?

GR: Well, we're always looking for an excuse for a party. The way this has been set up is that the same gender marriage equality bill becomes law on January 1 of 2010. At that point, those who have had a civil union can go to the town clerk and by simply signing a document convert their civil union to a marriage. One year later, on January 1 of 2011, all civil unions will be automatically converted to marriage, and there will be no category of civil unions. But because this is something we have wanted for a very, very long time and have worked very hard for, we will do that early next year.

JS: And just finally for those in Red State America who might be watching what is happening in several New England states and Iowa, what would your message to them be on this issue?

GR: I think my message would be that religious people who oppose this idea have nothing to fear from same-gender marriage equality. That no one will be asked to do anything that is against their conscience. On the other hand, let's remember that marriage is a civil act. That becomes quite clear when a marriage, let's say, that was performed in a church or a synagogue or a mosque comes apart. And the couple seeks a divorce. They don't go back to the church or synagogue or mosque. They go to the courts. Because it is a legal and civil action that was done.

It's gotten confused in this country because we have deputized clergy of all kinds to be and act as agents of the state in marriage. And so people don't know when the civil action begins and ends and when the religious part begins and ends. So I think this is a very helpful division between what the state does and what religious organizations do. And when once you understand that, you understand that allowing gay and lesbian people to have access to civil marriage has absolutely no affect on religious groups. And they have nothing to fear from this movement.

END