With all the ruckus about Barack Obama's cozying up to Donnie McClurkin, the gospel singer notoriously ignorant about the possibility of curing homosexuality, you'd think that none of the Democratic candidates have been pandering to the homophobic vote from the day they started running. More precisely, they have all been walking that tight-rope they hate so much between throwing a bone to the gays (and the LBTs) while not scaring off ostensibly straight voters.
In this game, all candidates have been associated with homophobes. For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry, of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland; her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery.
This campaigning compartmentalization has lead to the absurdity of Democrats rediscovering the value of states' rights, after the brief 1960s folly of empowering the federal government to have a say in the minor matter of local civil rights; segregationist Democratic party greats such as George Wallace would feel vindicated. The irony is thick: Democrats can't get enough of the federal government regulating every aspect of our lives, except on the one issue of same-sex marriage.
More bluntly, the leading Democratic candidates' stance on same-sex marriage is in itself homophobic, although I don't completely blame Clinton, Obama or John Edwards (actually, him I do blame for being a coward and trying to have it both ways by hiding behind both his faith and his wife). They are making a political calculation, and it is their right to do so; it is for the rest of us to show that calculation to be increasingly flawed.
His association with a fool like McClurkin notwithstanding, Obama easily remains the most convincing on the issue of gay rights. He is by far the most comfortably eloquent on the subject, and he is right when he says that he is the only candidate who has brought the fight to some of its toughest frontiers. Clinton, Ms. DOMA, is fine in front of a Human Rights Campaign audience, but, as with everything else, overly cautious elsewhere. As for Edwards, his stated "struggle" on the issue of gay marriage is not exactly inspiring, especially coming from Mr. Slick on every other topic. And, of course, we love Dennis Kucinich, but we are not going there.
Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins
They won't publicly admit that because it would tar them with the "bigot" label.Since voting is a private action they wouldn't be "outed" so the honest anti-homosexual candidate would get the bigot vote. It's really a majority position. think about it.
Rev Donnie is a closet case, just like Larry Craig. He is the most evil of all homophobes as they create a hostile environment for young gay people that are already having a struggle.
jack jett
I realize that a lot of you are political partisans of one particular candidate or another, and it's a kind of game to tout your guy and trash the others. But please realize that to some extent, you are representing the candidate you're supporting. Nastiness and vituperation may be good mental health therapy for you, but those kind of attacks are more likely to turn someone against your candidate than gain support.
I recently visited the Obama website and was pretty much appalled by some of the blog comments. I had to keep reminding myself that the comments were those of his supporters (of all stripes) and not Obama's opinion. (I'm sure it would be pretty much the same if I visited any of the other candidates' websites.)
I'm not suggesting you abridge your free speech. But if your object is to convice people of your point of view, please consider your approach.
That made me skeptical about voting for him at the time; there isn't a snowball's chance in a California brush fire I'm going to vote for him now. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ditch all the Dem candidates -- the first priority for me is getting The Frat Boy's Handlers out and then we hold the President's feet to the civil rights fire.
The 800-pound gorilla in this room is Obama's having been accused of "not being black enough" and responding to that by pandering to the very people in the African-American community who represent a huge moral failure there: widespread homophobia and an unspoken attitude of "civil rights were fine for us, but surely you can't be suggesting that this applies to Those People". No matter how that's tarted up with appeals to cultural tolerance, it's coming from a significant percentage of the very group of Americans who should know better.
As for "tolerance", that's a very unstable commodity when you're applying it to people who aren't content with their personal prejudices -- they want it codified into law, so now we have the obscene spectacle of "Christian" groups mounting zealous campaigns to ensure that hate crime bills are vetoed. IMO, tolerating distasteful differences in belief does not obligate any group of Americans to just resign themselves to second-class citizenship in the interest of not hurting some bigot's feelings.
But vote for Obama, or for Ron Paul if you must. Hell's only half full.
What he says is that the Federal government has the duty to recognize all religions equally under law.
He claims the Federal government should have no tie regulating marriage in any way..
This issue of the sanctity of marriage developed well before any government especially ours, and should never be regulated by the Federal government...In fact he claims all religions should be promoted, equally.
What he has done is vote against the Marriage amendment forcing a constitutional ban on any other type of marriage except between a man and a woman
He voted against this calling it unconstitutional.
He claims what should be done is this issue of gay marriage should be ripped from Federal court and placed back into the state for a vote by the people.
That vote would enact law.
If the state votes against gay marriage then so be it. The Federal government would support this states law.
What he has said on a few occasions but seldom written was that if the state decides to approve gay marriage his administration would recognize this under freedom of religion, and his Administration will not only recognize gay marriage but support all tax advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy.
It sounds to me like Ron Pauls administration would be the only one to fully recognize gay marriage and this would be done by a vote of the people in that state...We should have no Federal encroachments either way, by the Federal government.
To do this would be unconstitutional.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html
I am far left and I agree with his statements.
Go Ron Paul
Defender of our constitution.
Please support this bill that was introduced to restore us to our rightful place under the constitution. It is the only bill suggesting to do this.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/201007Freedom.htm
He may end up alienating both segments of the electorate.
He might have considered serving a full term as Senator befor attempting to tell the country how qualified he is simply because he did not support invading Iraq which really does not matter since he was not in the Senate at the time anyway.
Enough Ombama please.
There is no possible excuse for his appearing with this McClurkin, period, end of discussion. The Human Rights Campaign has taken the right approach in telling Obama that this is a no-go for LGBT voters...this guy appears with you, you don't get the community's support. He could have a record that is exemplary, but he has crossed a line here of political calculation that he swore he would never do, something so many here have whined endlessly about that Hillary does (BULLSHIT!). Face the facts, Obama has presented himself as a visionary, and he is nothing of the kind. The people who support him have become delusional and one-tracked, refusing to see when he is clearly not what he has promoted himself as...maybe that is why people are turning away from him in droves, and with this terrible move, LGBT people are joining those who are running away from him at lightning speed. The damage is done. He has chosen to throw the LGBT over the railing in hopes of securing the black evangelists, not something a "uniter" should be doing. How does the black LGBT community see this? Do you give Obama a pass? Why?
It's always tempting to cast debates and issues as having only two possible sides, which means the typical rhetoric (and often the outcome) is polarizing, "you're either for us or you're against us." Keeping lines of communication open has been a touchstone of Obama's political vision, which he clearly puts in to practice, too.
The price of the politics of intolerance is unacceptably high. So this is an opportunity, and Obama's statement re-affirming that gays and lesbians are "our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens" is out there for all to see, and ponder.
We cannot remain locked in a system that equates the act of reaching out to evangelicals to an affront to non-evangelicals if we are to move forward. We cannot accept that reaching out to people of color is an affront to people who are pigment-challenged; we must not fear that reaching out to (*gasp*) conservatives is an affront to progressives. Nor should we tolerate the mindset that suggests that embracing a person who is gay or lesbian is an insult to those who endorse a more traditional sexuality.
Imagine all the people expecting to simply hear Donnie McClurkin and yet being exposed to this tolerant, reasonable, uniting campaign for inclusivity.
Understanding is the first step toward change. What is the first step toward understanding?
Tolerance begins at home.
I have more important news for you :
OBAMA IN BOSTON ADDRESSES 9,500
THE HONORABLE GOVERNOR Deval Patrick said:
"For once, I want a campaign that’s not about the candidate, but about us.
Not about a resumé, but about character. Not about connections or convenience, but about conviction. Not about smearing the competition, but about lifting us all up. Not about the right and the left, but about right and wrong. Not about yesterday, but about tomorrow.
I don’t care whether the next president has experience in the White House. I care whether he understands life in your house.
I don’t care whether the next president has already met foreign heads of state. I care whether he knows something about how people live and think in distant cities and villages and can remember that our actions affect them, too.
I don’t care whether the next president is the first black president or the first woman president or the first whatever, to tell you the truth. I care that the next president has moral courage, a political backbone, the humility to admit what he doesn’t know, and the wisdom to learn from others".
GO OBAMA 08.
Until then I'll call it the way I see it, another politician who says one thing (to gays) but does another when it's politically expedient.