In direct response to my column, "Obama Should Repudiate and Cancel His Gay Bash Tour, and Cancel it Now," Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama quickly issued this statement:
"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."
Obama's response to my call for him to reject support of Grammy winning singer and anti gay crusader, Donnie McClurkin was a big, bold, and direct claim that he will fight anti-gay phobia, and aggressively challenge religious leaders to do the same. One of those at the top of the list of religious leaders that he says that he challenged is McClurkin. But one line missing from his disavowal of gay bashing was this: "I will not appear on stage with Reverend McClurkin unless he publicly disavows his rabid anti-gay statements and crusade." Since Obama didn't add that line, this question still dangles dangerously. How hard will Obama fight as president for tolerance, specifically against anti gay bigotry? This is the supreme litmus test for any candidate that purports to champion diversity and tolerance.
It's even more of a test, or challenge for Obama, given the depth of homophobia among many mega black ministers, and many of those in their congregations. Obama desperately wants and need their votes in his fight with Hillary Clinton, who continues to widen the gap over him in the political life and death struggle to win over black voters.
The hard core black evangelical ministers loom bigger and bigger in the battle to slice away at Clinton's black support. That's even more crucial in South Carolina. An Obama win in the state would propel him skyward in his march toward the presidential nomination. Black voters make up more than forty percent of the Democratic vote in the state, and a significant percentage of them are evangelical leaning, and openly hostile to gay rights. Many are strict Bible constructionists and take literally passages that condemn homosexuality as a sin against the almighty.
In 2004, Bush adroitly tapped into that sentiment. It paid huge political dividends for him with an aroused throng of conservative black Christian church goers particularly in the Bible Belt of Northern Florida. They were not inherently hostile to Bush. They were incensed at gay marriage.
In exit polls, an astounding near thirty percent of black voters there said they backed Bush. One made it clear why, "I admire him because he's not for gay marriage and he's pro-life. He's strong in morals." By contrast, blacks in Miami and Dade County gave his Democratic presidential rival John Kerry more than ninety percent of their vote. Overall, Bush got eighteen percent of the black vote in Florida. If Bush hadn't got the phenomenal support he got from blacks in North Florida, his margin of victory over Kerry would have been much narrower. Florida might well have seen a repeat of the 2000 electoral soap opera in which Democrats and Republicans engaged in a political orgy of charges, counter charges of fraud and manipulation, and demands for recounts.
Northern Florida is a stone's throw from South Carolina, and many of the evangelical leaning blacks in the state are every bit as passionate about their faith as the black faithful in Northern Florida. A win for him in South Carolina with the aid of the black religious leaders and their congregations could resonate in the other Deep South states where the black vote is just as crucial to Hillary and Obama's success, and where that vote is also heavily influenced by religious zealotry.
Obama certainly won't openly fan the flames of religious driven intolerance against gays. He will continue to fervently denounce it. But without a direct and forceful challenge to those such as McClurkin to do the same, they're just words. And politicians are masterful at using words when they want to win.
My call still stands. Barack: demand that McClurkin repent and save himself from his gay bashing ways, or cancel your appearance with him.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is "The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics" (Middle Passage Press). hutchinsonreport@aol.com
let's envision a much more extreme scenario: for example, what if i, a jewish person, owned a beautiful portrait painted by hitler (after all, the guy was a famous, talented artist). would i burn the portrait or insist that only nazis would show the thing? no, i'd keep it to show people as a conversation piece. if it attracted a few nazis, maybe they'd come by and find out that i don't have horns and a tail after all.
but if you find it idiotic that the political positions of an artist should not be the main criterion for hiring them, on that i think you would be dead wrong.
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/10/obama_the_votewhore_with_exgay_at_his_si.php
Trusting is one thing but whether his stand address your concern is for each indvidual to judge.
QUOTE from Glenn Greenwald, Salon.Com:
*****
"The decision by the Obama campaign to issue a mealy-mouthed statement condemning the singer's views -- but leaving McClurkin as part of the tour -- only revealed how fine a line the presidential candidate is walking between his LGBT supporters and the black religious voters he covets." [note: it is wrong to covet]
"My guess is that the political cost of throwing the LGBT community on the bus was considered a fair price to pay to pick up some votes in the Palmetto State -- the gamble being it would be far less likely to rise to a significant level of controversy in the mainstream media."
Sound and fury, signifying precious little.
If a son is "stubborn and rebelious", or a "glutton and a drunkard" (Deuteronomy 21), or if a daughter loses her virginity (Deut. 22), or are "dreamers of dreams (Deut. 13), or just gather firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15), then the parents should have their children stoned to death. Who's obeying these legalistic injunctions.
One can not pull verses out of context without running the risk of degrading the whole to the point of incoherence.
Every politician who claims to share Conserative Christian values, by definition, subscribes to all of the above and should be compelled to defend the position.
Get with the program!
Are you going to suggest that Obama have a big study to see if global warming is natural too?
Obama is wimpier than George Bush's father.
If Romney appeared with Anita Bryant Obama fans(like me)would be grossed out. What's the difference? DM is just as big a joke as AB is.
He is a staple on Christian TV. I am not a regular viewer, for I see him and others as I flip through the channels. I have never heard that he had been gay and now is anti gay.
He is well known and accepted by a lot of people. Anyways, I don't know if people are making more of this than they should be.
There are other stories that should carry a little more weight than this one. I am suprised as to how the Clinton china town fundraiser left the headlines. Believe me, Republicans will dig it all up if she wins.
Who gives a shit?
Why don't you want a strong leader (Hillary)?
Do you want America to fail?
Than again, I will now also have no problem not voting for him.
Everyone is free to make a choice.
It seems like the good people always get themselves in a box that is hard to get out of. When will we in America learn to live and let live.
What position should Obama take regarding Gay rights?
---> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=782.
All the while, I watched in horror as my family became fanatical followers of a Texas preacher of hate who created a dictatorship that tore an historic church apart with his typically-Texan message; drove away anyone who questioned his plans; burned a beautiful landmark to the ground to make way for his own business (named a Baptist church) and built an army of followers who blindly follow & literally worship the man. In the wake, he eliminated the membership of anyone who wasn't WASP.
So much for christian love.
Several of my ancestors fought & died in the Civil War battles, particularly near Chattanooga. Seeing their names listed on the Illinois units was an important moment in my young life; I was very moved and proud that they had died for a great cause. However, during this same trip (in the 1950's) I saw that not much had changed in the South: the "white" drinking fountains; the signs indicating that "N*****'s" use the old hose behind the gas stations, etc.
How can we be a free society unless there are NO exceptions? We need GLBT equality, and it won't come from bible-verse-out-of-context hate-mongers. Shame on Obama for not standing with all Americans. More shame on these religious zealots for using this hate tactic to gain support. In spite of their screams, they owe us their support for equality.
Get out of the pockets of those who use the "hate all queers" tactics for their gain in power. It's wrong and they know it is. It is, however expedient, powerful, "sinful in the eyes of god" to borrow one of their regular sayings, and sinister to the core.
I want my candidate to have the moral courage to tell all bigots that they don't want their vote.