Big Gay Rights Group Condemns Obama For Campaign Event With Antigay Singer

Comments (86)

gnatster wrote on October 24, 2007 6:31 PM:

I think it says a lot (about this issue) that the Obama camp did not simply capitulate and cut McClurkin. And its not just because they need the African American vote. If this was a *simple* black and white issue that "all reasonable people" agree on, then they would have acted quickly to eliminate the problem. Even if you don't support Obama, you can't say (with a straight face) that his team is unintelligent.

Hatch wrote on October 24, 2007 6:36 PM:

That's not such a strong condemnation if you actually read it. It almost seems like a compliment:

"We also call on all of the Presidential campaigns to... make the same commitment to engage in a dialogue among differing views around issues of equality and fairness..."

Meanwhile over at AmericaBlog, Aravosis seems to have lost his mind.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 6:37 PM:

When was the last time an ultimatium actually worked?

EricD wrote on October 24, 2007 6:43 PM:

Americablog has not lost anything.

Should we just ignore that Obama embraces a man who beats up women, too?

Liberal Larry wrote on October 24, 2007 6:47 PM:

Don't ask. Don't tell.

CJD wrote on October 24, 2007 6:48 PM:

Even if you don't support Obama, you can't say (with a straight face) that his team is unintelligent.

That's so true. They must have figured the homophobic black vote is more important than the gay one.

party-of-one wrote on October 24, 2007 6:49 PM:

Good Greg, you've gotten what you've worked so hard to accomplish: Obama has now been chastised by the Human Rights Campaign. But do you really think Obama is anti-gay? If not, is this really a "controversy" just a distraction? Does it really advance the gay agenda or other progressive causes? Or are you just trying to boost Hillary any way you can?

Interesting that Greg reports "...According to sources, HRC offered various suggestions to the Obama camp if they wanted to avoid getting criticized by the group. What a laugh, as if Hillary is sincere in anything she says and does. The last thing Obama should do is emulate Hillary's masterful pandering to any group on any issue.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 6:56 PM:

Where was Americablog and your outrage when this wife beater was on ABC last week? HBO? ESPN? Or his sponsorship by Nike, Everlast

Oh, and John officially lost all crediblity with this line:

"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul."

Apparently us black folks only like entertainers if they beat women or hate gays. This mentality has been DRIVING this whole debate. I mean, McClurkin ONLY appeals to the bigotry in us black folks. What, he can sing too? Don't care; only matters that he hates homosexuals!

He officially should shut the f*ck up, because he's not helping his cause or winning himself any friends these types of inflammatory statements.

horizonr wrote on October 24, 2007 6:59 PM:

One has to ask why TPM is spinning the Human Rights Campaign's "disappointment" -- the strongest word in matter-of-fact but otherwise rather conciliatory statement -- into the jacked-up headline and lede that the HRC has "condemned" Obama.

They've done no such thing.

Surely, this hyping is related to the fact that we haven't heard anything here -- or from HRC or John Avarosis or Earl Ofari Hutchinson or anyone else who has helped collectively to manufacture this little "controversy" -- about the anti-gay skeletons in Hillary Clinton's closet.

Guess she's got pretty big pockets.

elrapierwit wrote on October 24, 2007 7:01 PM:

That the HRC would come out and 'condemn' a candidate who has supported the very principles they claim is their mission speaks volumes.

What's clear is that Obama is far more tolerant and embracing of divergent views than the HRC.

The HRC should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that this stance on their part demostrates to all that they are not an organization to be respected nor that is creditible. HRC demands tolerance while being intolerant is the key message here.

McClurkin has a right to his views, and Obama has clearly stated that he does not agree with them.
'
What the HRC has not figured out is that the audience holds the same views as McClurkin and HRC's condmenation only makes it more likely that those who are supporting this gospel tour will be that much more likely to vote for Obama along with the rest of the nation, as HRC has shown themselves to be intolerant of diverse views.

HRC was wrong to take this stance and they will regret it, in terms of their political influence.

EricD wrote on October 24, 2007 7:02 PM:

It is Obama who is associating himself with these men.

Just because media companies who seek profits may do something wrong, that justifies Obama?

I am tired of people who justify wrongs by looking at the wrongs of others.

If Obama stands for something better, let him act in conformity with these ideals.

CJD wrote on October 24, 2007 7:08 PM:

It's pretty clear that McClurkin is a closet-case. He protests a lot.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 7:09 PM:

Eric D

I'm not defending anybody for doing anything. What I'm spelling out is this suddden outage by Aravois is disingenuous at best, and a poor attempt to BLACKMAIL Senator Obama to adopt his preferred solution. He didn't give two sh*ts about Floyd Mayweather or his record before Obama didn't capitulate to his ultimatium. So he decideds to stir up as much bullsh*t as he can. And in the process exposes himself as a racists.

So spare me your holier-than-thou attitude. McClurkin is a bigot. Aravois just exposed himself as a racist.

AJ wrote on October 24, 2007 7:15 PM:

Gnatster- It would have said a great deal more about Obama and his team if they hadn't involved them selves with an anti-gay singer in the first place. This whole thing is entirely an unforced error.

IWW wrote on October 24, 2007 7:17 PM:

Obama's team may be plenty intelligent, but for $75 million, you'd think they'd find someone who knows how to work The Googles by now.

Also, since when do we expect political bloggers to keep tabs on sports figures when they're not involved in campaigning? I fail to see how that exposes anyone as a racist. A political junkie with an axe to grind perhaps.

EricD wrote on October 24, 2007 7:21 PM:

When you say holier than thou, it's just as I was saying. Blame me because I believe that it's up to Obama to do the right thing.

Americablog is not the watchdog of everything. Obama IS a candidate for President.

The fact is that you did make comparisons as a justification, rather than address what Obama has done on its own merits.

Michael P owe wrote on October 24, 2007 7:22 PM:

On a more serious note, this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul.

I have to agree with other commenters that this remark was just motivated by bigotry. Oh yes, members of "his own community" just hate gays and beat women wholesale. And all gay men are hip-swinging nancy boys, too. but, we all knew that.

the reality is, we have an openly antigay singer campaigning for a candidate openly supporting gays. that would seem to be the very "dialog" that HRC wants to stop while simultaneously claiming that they want to support it.

thanks.

mp

Mike M. wrote on October 24, 2007 7:27 PM:

Thinking that the problem is solved by having a homosexual preacher say a few words at the show is ridiculous. Imagine somebody hosting David Duke at an event but saying it's okay because they're also letting an African American speak. Why is Obama giving the stage to a hater?

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 7:32 PM:

Eric D:

I'm not defend McClurkin, though I applaud Obama resisting the ultimatium. What I'm railing against, is this scorched earth policy Aravosis is implementing. He didn't give two-shits about Mayweather until his support for Obama. So, if it's about terrible, terrible Mayweather, where's his outrage that HBO et al happily pay him millions of dollars. I'm pointing out the HYPOCRISY, not defending Mayweather or Obama.

John Aravosis lost all credibility on this issue when he implied that Obama is trying to appeal to the black community by associating with bigots and wife-beaters.

His scorched earth approach is only going to result in one thing: scorched earth.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 7:36 PM:

IWW:

"this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul"

What exactly constitutes Obama's "own community"? And whoever that community is, it loves gay-bashing and wife beating more.

If you don't think that's racist, that's cool. But as a member of "that community", I am well familiar with what Aravosis is.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 7:40 PM:

That is a very odd first paragraph. As far as I know, McClurkin will be singing, not expressing his views about being gay.

So what does it mean to say, "That’s a message that certainly doesn’t belong on any Presidential candidate’s stage"?

To make any sense of their statement, what they really must mean is something like: "A person who has expressed that message in the past [or maybe just a person who believes that message] doesn't belong on any Presidential candidate's stage." But I guess they don't want to come out and say it like that, because it invites people to think a bit about the broader implications of HRC's demands.

EricD wrote on October 24, 2007 7:41 PM:

The why doesn't Obama, when he discovers these things, do what is right and disassociate himself from these men?

I'd be interested on your take. Is there not a right and a wrong, irrespective of ultimatums?

HBO has nothing to do with this issue.

bob wrote on October 24, 2007 7:44 PM:

Human Rights Campaign and John Aravosis: Part and Parcel of the Hillary campaign?

Read the MyDD diary posted above:

Is HRC Giving HRC a Pass?
by horizonr, Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:24:36 PM EST

Following is the text of the email letter I sent to the Human Rights Campaign, after reading the news this morning that the HRC has threatened
the Obama campaign that it will publicly denounce Obama if he does not disinvite black gospel singer and pastor Donnie McClurkin from singing in
his upcoming gospel concert series in South Carolina:

You're Threatening Obama Now? (subject line)

This is unspeakably short-sighted and counterproductive.

I've always admired and supported the work of the Human Rights Campaign, But do you honestly believe that any other candidate in this race has
greater potential than Barack Obama to move this country further along the path toward being a pro-diversity society -- a society that creates more
acceptance and opportunity for everyone, including lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people?

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to take a deep breath, then take a good, long look at the forest -- instead of the trees.

Of course, if you insist on going down this misguided path, you might consider exercising a little fairness in the matter.

Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher, too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant 2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit
to preach against homosexuality.

When asked about this in 2004, Mayberry gave the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" defense:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

But just this past August, Hillary Clinton met with Mayberry and thanked him for his "commitment to fighting for civil rights and equality."

Ever hear of Darrell Jackson? Another black preacher. Like Donnie McClurkin. In South Carolina. Like Donnie McClurkin. He's a State Senator, too.
And a political consultant. Busy guy.

In fact, just after Jackson endorsed Clinton in February, he admitted that he's also negotiated a $10,000-a-month consulting contract with
her campaign.

Turns out Jackson's not a big fan of gay people, either. Although Jackson abstained from voting on a 2005 bill for a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina -- two of Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted for the
bill -- he indicated in remarks on the Senate floor that an amendment was a moot point, since most people in South Carolina -- himself
included -- already opposed same-sex marriage.

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

How many times do you think Jackson has uttered -- or will utter -- anti-gay sentiments while Clinton is paying him?

Are you going to publicly denounce Hillary Clinton for her association with -- and endorsement by -- these people?

Or is she getting a pass, because she's "your girl"?

Please think before you act. Nobody's hands are clean here.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 7:44 PM:

By the way, I will not comment on Avarosis's statement, other than to note that those who originally came up with this as a wedge issue undoubtedly could not be more pleased.

bob wrote on October 24, 2007 7:45 PM:

Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher, too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant 2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit
to preach against homosexuality.

When asked about this in 2004, Mayberry gave the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" defense:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

But just this past August, Hillary Clinton met with Mayberry and thanked him for his "commitment to fighting for civil rights and equality."

Ever hear of Darrell Jackson? Another black preacher. Like Donnie McClurkin. In South Carolina. Like Donnie McClurkin. He's a State Senator, too.
And a political consultant. Busy guy.

In fact, just after Jackson endorsed Clinton in February, he admitted that he's also negotiated a $10,000-a-month consulting contract with
her campaign.

Turns out Jackson's not a big fan of gay people, either. Although Jackson abstained from voting on a 2005 bill for a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina -- two of Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted for the
bill -- he indicated in remarks on the Senate floor that an amendment was a moot point, since most people in South Carolina -- himself
included -- already opposed same-sex marriage.

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

How many times do you think Jackson has uttered -- or will utter -- anti-gay sentiments while Clinton is paying him?

Are you going to publicly denounce Hillary Clinton for her association with -- and endorsement by -- these people?

Or is she getting a pass, because she's "your girl"?

Please think before you act. Nobody's hands are clean here.

bob wrote on October 24, 2007 7:46 PM:

Ever hear of Harold Mayberry? He's a black preacher, too. Like Donnie McClurkin. And he uses his giant 2,800-member Oakland, California, pulpit
to preach against homosexuality.

When asked about this in 2004, Mayberry gave the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" defense:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

But just this past August, Hillary Clinton met with Mayberry and thanked him for his "commitment to fighting for civil rights and equality."

Ever hear of Darrell Jackson? Another black preacher. Like Donnie McClurkin. In South Carolina. Like Donnie McClurkin. He's a State Senator, too.
And a political consultant. Busy guy.

In fact, just after Jackson endorsed Clinton in February, he admitted that he's also negotiated a $10,000-a-month consulting contract with
her campaign.

Turns out Jackson's not a big fan of gay people, either. Although Jackson abstained from voting on a 2005 bill for a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina -- two of Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short, voted for the
bill -- he indicated in remarks on the Senate floor that an amendment was a moot point, since most people in South Carolina -- himself
included -- already opposed same-sex marriage.

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

How many times do you think Jackson has uttered -- or will utter -- anti-gay sentiments while Clinton is paying him?

Are you going to publicly denounce Hillary Clinton for her association with -- and endorsement by -- these people?

Or is she getting a pass, because she's "your girl"?

Please think before you act. Nobody's hands are clean here.

bob wrote on October 24, 2007 7:48 PM:

To be honest, it's starting to sound like we are going to have a hard time keeping both gay people and black people in our big tent if people are committed to driving a wedge in between them and forcing every candidate to choose sides rather than push for dialogue and reconciliation.

DLT wrote on October 24, 2007 7:52 PM:

Disassociating Donnie McClurkin doesn't solve anything. Having a dialogue at least starts a conversation. Like it or not, many African-Americans are politically liberal and socially conservative. The phrase "Adam and Eve", not "Adam and Adam" is repeated in church pulpits every Sunday. Donnie McClurkin and Mary Mary are not atypical. There views are shared by the Winan family and other gospel artists. Dialogue is needed instead of condemnation.

paleblade wrote on October 24, 2007 7:54 PM:

Yes I can say the Obama campaign is unintelligent. They could have appealed to the religious base, without publicly supporting second class citizenship for some Americans by having a bigot share the stage.

The issue is not gay or not gay. The issue is second class citizenship for some Americans based on personal prejudices. It is unpatriotic and it is a betrayal. The fact that I am not gay does not make this any less disgusting to me.

Obama's campaign has been fairly inept, from what I can gather. How could an insurgent campaign have such awful blogger outreach, as both Josh Marshall and Markos state? The campaign is not ready for prime time and neither is Obama.

party-of-one wrote on October 24, 2007 8:03 PM:

Either the Human Rights Campaign or Hillary Rhodam Clinton needs to get some new intials. HRC doesn't work for both.

mjames wrote on October 24, 2007 8:07 PM:

Like it or not?
This is pandering for some votes, plain and simple.
There is no dialogue with this guy. Read his words.
Whatever the particular discrimination, whoever is engaging in the discrimination, there is no other option but to condemn.
Condemnation is mandatory.
Is Obama gonna have some southern white male neo-nazis appear with him next - as an opportunity for a "dialogue?"

mjames wrote on October 24, 2007 8:14 PM:

Like it or not?
Obama is not opening a dialogue with this guy. This guy already has the "answers" on homosexuality.
Obama is pandering for votes - pure and simple. And those of you who support this "dialogue" are acknowledging that some portion of the black community views homosexuality as a sin - or something bad. Well, that's unacceptable in this day and age (and, really, always has been) - in any community.
Is Obama gonna have some white southern KKK neo-nazis at his next fundraiser to "dialogue" with?
Give me a break.
COndemnation is mandatory here.
This has been the problem with the Dems for far too long. Simply stand up for what is right - and you might be surprised by the results.
Strength of character is in awful short supply these days.

IWW wrote on October 24, 2007 8:16 PM:

Anonymous

Yes, I agree that the statement you quote is at best walking the line, and arguably over it.

What I objected to was the idea that by investigating Mayweather, Americablog was behaving in a racist fashion. Here, Obama is getting the same scrutiny that candidates like Giuliani (staffer exposed as pedophile), McCain and Romney have received. Moreover, if the McClurkin episode demonstrated anything, it is that the Obama campaign is doing a miserable job of vetting its associates. Why *shouldn't* a political journalist look into some of his other headliners??

And, I think Hillary should be asked the same questions. FWIW, the first I heard of Mayberry was through Americablog, so it's not as if they're covering up for her.

mjames wrote on October 24, 2007 8:16 PM:

The following was missing from my post:

Give me a break.
Condemnation is mandatory here.
This has been the problem with the Dems for far too long. Simply stand up for what is right - and you might be surprised by the results.
Strength of character is in awful short supply these days

seanh wrote on October 24, 2007 8:19 PM:

no easy way out of this problem for the Obama campaign. I'm getting the impression these recent gaffes are part of a mild chaos emerging from the Obama camp.

Obama really need to get up on stage and speak just prior to this concert if the Rev. is still on the bill. He needs to speak passionately and honestly about homophobia and the desperate need for tolerance. Even with McClurkin performing on stage, if Obama lets his audience know what the event is about, he can save face. Ahmadinejad's Q&A at Columbia, while there are plenty of differences, has some interesting parallels to this recent controversy. The Iranian president wasn't an invited supporter or promoter of Columbia University, which is completely different than McClurkin's billing, but Obama can stake similar territory. Openly condemn homophobia in front of the same audience, on the same stage, but emphasize the good work McClurkin has done at the same time. Encourage McClurkin to stay on board, but only if he's willing to stand beside Obama's stated principles.

DLT wrote on October 24, 2007 8:19 PM:

Somehow, I doubt a southern white male neo-nazi would support Obama (by the way, wouldn't neo-nazi be an adequate description? Why add "southern"?). Which leads me to wonder why an anti-gay minister would support a politician that favors gay rights. I would like to understand where he's coming from. Condemning shuts the door. Dialogue might provide some answers, and possibly some growth. If not with McClurkin, than others in the African-American church. Why close the door entirely when there is an opportunity for teachable moments?

NCSteve wrote on October 24, 2007 8:28 PM:

Is it just me? As statements of condemnation go, this doesn't strike me as that strong. (Possibly I'm just innured to the vitriol we toss at each other on these boards.) Seems kind of like they were trying to walk the middle ground between not totally alienating Obama and not looking like chumps when he refused to do exactly what they demanded he do. Is there some coded message I'm missing here?

NamelessFaceless wrote on October 24, 2007 8:29 PM:

Long time reader, first time commenter . . .

I have seen a number of commenters claim that the folks running this place have a pro-Hillary bias (or, at other times, a pro-Obama bias, or an anti-Edwards bias or a too-quick-to-ignore-everyone-else bias). I haven't paid a lot of attention to those comments because I thought people have a tendency to have a bias for their candidate that clouds their objectivity. But in this instance, seeing a headline that blares "Gay Rights Group Condemns Obama" then reading that they were just disappointed with him and then thanked him for adding an openly gay minister makes me wonder. There seems to be a complete disconnect between that headline and the moderate tap on the wrist the HRC delivered. Please let me know if I am wrong and an expression of disappointment is actually a strong condemnation in the alternate universe we call politics.

NamelessFaceless

PS-As an Obama supporter, I agree with bob and others who have raised this point that it would be nice for the anti-homophobes (whom I respect) to reserve some of that anger for all of the candidates who, at one time or another, have embraced the support of those who share McClurkin's heinous views. This would include almost every Democrat who has sought national office in recent years. The best way to move forward is to directly challenge the beliefs of those who hate gays and to try to change hearts and minds and to get people to recognize shared humanity. I think Obama has done this as well as, or better than, any other candidate out there and I enthusiastically support his efforts.

texasdem wrote on October 24, 2007 8:37 PM:

NCSteve,

No, it's not just you. I read through the post thinking the worst, then got to the final statement by HRC. They encourage Obama and all the candidates to move forward with dialogue between homophobic people like McClurkin and the GLBT community. Condemnation? Hardly. I think you tagged it exactly right.

Terje wrote on October 24, 2007 8:39 PM:

As a proud out gay man and a long time Democratic and queer activist, I find myself unable to become as worked up around the issue of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin’s inclusion in an Obama concert as many of my colleagues have.

McClurkin’s bizarre views on the subject are anathema to anyone who cares about equality. Clearly he is a troubled man whose personal struggles with sexuality have caused him to adopt a hateful message. How sad for him, and how unfortunate for all of us that he chooses to spout his hateful speech in public. If McClurkin were running for President (or any other office), I would be working hard to defeat him.

If the Obama campaign had invited him to speak about human sexuality, or appointed him to an advisory committee on human rights, or otherwise given him a platform for his views, I would be as angry as so many others seem to be.

But McClurkin isn’t supporting the campaign as a spokesperson on these issues – he’s singing gospel songs. As it happens, Donnie McClurkin is a talented gospel singer with a huge following, especially among a subset of religious African-Americans. His participation will attract a large number of Democratic voters who are attracted to his voice, not necessarily his viewpoints (which presumably he won’t be given the opportunity to voice at the concert). I’m pleased that those attending the concert will also hear an openly gay minister speak – not something that usually happens at a gospel concert. Talk about a teachable moment.

Like it or not, any candidate for President needs the support of millions of people who have dramatically different viewpoints on a large number of issues. Rejecting support from all who disagree (even on a fundamental issue) makes it impossible for any candidate to effectively reach the broad spectrum of the American voting public.

Is every candidate for President suddenly going to be held accountable for the views of all their supporters? Will entertainers, politicians, community leaders, bloggers, activists and others who are asked to lend support to a campaign be excluded for holding viewpoints that will be offensive to some voters?

If that is the test, I’m sure we can find plenty of other outrageous examples of homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, classist, ageist, xenophobic or similarly offensive statements by supporters of other candidates as well. Do we really think Hillary Clinton has never invited an outspokenly homophobic minister to share the stage, or that they weren’t invited to the Clinton White House? Are we sure that none of John Edwards southern supporters haven’t uttered homophobic statements before (or voted for hate inspired legislation)? For that matter, what are we too make of the fact that Hillary’s number one supporter gave us DOMA, DADT, and cost lives by refusing to lift the ban on needle exchange? Should I refuse to vote for her because of the hateful things Bill did for political expediency?

For me, the issue isn’t the viewpoints of those who sing at candidate events, it is the positions and record of the candidate themselves.

Barack Obama’s record on gay and lesbian issues is clear and consistent. He speaks out loudly and unequivocably on these issues, and his legislative record is clear and without flaws. (And for those white liberals who are somehow convinced that all religious African-Americans are fundamentalist bible-thumpers, it is worth pointing out that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, an emphatically progressive church that fully supports gay rights - including marriage.)

With the sad exception of the marriage issue, we are fortunate that all of the candidates for the Democratic nomination are taking clear positions in support of lgbt Americans. Barack Obama’s policy positions and record in this regard are second to none of the major candidates.

I continue to support Barack Obama because I believe that he is the best candidate for the office. He is uniquely suited to restore America’s place in the world, and to change the political dialogue at home. In the end, I believe Barack Obama will be the best President not just for glbt equality, but for all Americans, and the world.

I realize that this may put me in a distinct minority among many who are blogging on this subject. I respect the viewpoints of those who have a different opinion than I do, but I wanted to share my perspectives on the topic.

Terje Anderson
Montgomery, Vermont

(Terje Anderson is the former Executive Director of the National Association of People with AIDS, and a long time activist on queer and HIV/AIDS issues at the local, state, national, and international level).

tbhull wrote on October 24, 2007 8:42 PM:

While HRC makes a point that about an issue 10% of the voters really care about, where is HRC on retroactove immunity for the the telcos involved with NASA/BushCo in warrantless wiretappring? This issue is infinitely more important than letting some gay bashing fundy dipshit speak at some campaign stop, as warrantless wiretapping impacts EVERY American and strikes at the heart of limited government.

At least Obama addressed this real issue by stating he would support anyone (not that he would commence the filibuster) who commenced a filibuster to oppose telcom retroactive immunity legislation. Therefore, Obama gets a 2 on the 10 point leadership scale, while HRC and her telelcom sycophantic establishment suckling silence gets a 0. Dodd gets a 10 and my vote. HRC is no different (except for perhaps health care) that BushCo for the most part.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 24, 2007 8:44 PM:

By the numbers there are more black folk than gay folk . . . even with cross-over factored in. Perhaps Obama is a numbers man.

On the other side, if I were thin skinned I would have a hissy fit that there is no Rabbis or Imans on the religous docket . . .

mikel1814 wrote on October 24, 2007 8:47 PM:

Note to Democrats: Lot's of black people are Baptists. Lots of Baptists do not approve of, condone, or accept homosexuality.

Good luck with that one! Goooo churches!

jprichva wrote on October 24, 2007 8:58 PM:

Terje--
I appreciate your point, but there is a world of difference between having "supporters" with hateful views and actively promoting by sharing a stage with someone whose views are both twisted and well-known. You can't help it if someone you dislike "supports" you; they're free to "support" anyone they care to. But when you include such a person in a campaign event, you cannot escape the fact that you're endorsing his views.

How many Republican fundraisers have asked Barbra Streisand support? And the girl can SING..!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 24, 2007 9:23 PM:

bob @ October 24, 2007 7:45 PM:

You believe that a Democratic candidate should give a crap about flesh and blood human rights and therefore are miffed by Clinton's apparent lack of integrity on this subject. Clinton lacks the convictions you express a desire for in a candidate..

Unfortunately for gay folk, they are flesh and blood human folk. If they were financial institutions claiming to be artifical humans with rights manifestly granted to them by Milton Friedman, she would fight to the death for them.

Nobody in this reality expects Clinton to give a squat about any flesh and blood human, so the two-faced nature of her press release fails to register a blip.

Obama expresses the pretense of giving a crap about flesh and blood humans,so he is catching crap over this. This is an integrity issuse for him.

In simpler words, it is not that Clinton isn't two-faced; it is because it is expected of her and therefore acceptable.

slcathena wrote on October 24, 2007 9:26 PM:

NamelessFaceless,

You would in fact be correct in your observation.

PS: Welcome to the comments section.

POed Lib wrote on October 24, 2007 9:43 PM:

This is a very unfair witch hunt. It is a repulsive purity test. It is guilt by association.

The VEHEMENCE and ANIMOSITY extended to Obama for this piddling teensy infraction is amazing to me. Why Obama? Hmmmmm.....

pacc wrote on October 24, 2007 9:44 PM:

Dumb-ass Barry is right font and center, calling for the head of an election official known for his racist comments. But faster than you can say, hypocritical, two-faced, pandering politician, he's ready to jump on the stage with a homophobic bigot. Can anybody say "Stinky B.O.?"

POed Lib wrote on October 24, 2007 9:48 PM:

This is a perfect opportunity for Obama to have a "Sista Solja" moment. The gay activist wackos are way out of line on this. Most normal Democrats are scratching their heads, wondering "Wassa?" and very unsure about the totally bullshit charges being leveled at Obama. Rather than stating that the choice was "questionable" they immediately have charged that Obama is a gay basher and crazy wack shit like that.

I hope that Obama just tells the gay wacks to take a flying jump. They are out of control.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 9:49 PM:

Thanks Terje, you expressed my point far more eloquently than I possibly ever could have.

CalD wrote on October 24, 2007 10:25 PM:

I'm actually not sure this even qualifies as smart political pandering. Republican robo-pollster Scott Rasmussen estimates that about 10% of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa are evangelical Christians. No such luck on finding a statistic for GLBT caucus-goers but but in terms of general population, best estimates range between 5% and 15%, of whom 70% tend to vote Democratic. So if you managed to piss off one group while trying to pander to the other, it's not at all clear there's an net gain there to be had.

Leon723 wrote on October 24, 2007 10:35 PM:

Thanks, Terje. Brilliant post. This story sickens me. Jprichva, who says that Obama is endorsing this man's views by putting him up on a stage to sing -- and then contrasting that with the support Hillary has gotten from anti-gay preachers -- is doubly wrong. Obama made it clear early in the genesis of this story that he does not support McClurkin's views about gays, and Obama's whole political life has been consistent with that view. And contrary to Jprchiva's implications, the anti-gays associated with Hillary are not just folks who chose to endorse her against her will. Hillary sought Mayberry's endorsement hard and then proudly announced it on her website. So at least do your homework for crying out loud.

Contrast Obama's record with Bill "DOMA" Clinton who opposed needle exchanges THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES because DIck Morris (whom Hillary encouraged Bill to bring into the White House, see Stephanopoulos' memoir) told Bill and Hill that needle exchange was not polling well. .

I'd like to see Obama now do something positive with this story. Perhaps he can point out that if he refused the support of volunteers merely because the volunteer had a position that Obama disagreed with, Obama would find himself lonely and isolated, as would any other Democrat trying to pull together a national coalition and overcome the sharp cultural Blue State/Red State divides that thus far have only helped elect Republicans and not HRC's preferred candidates. Remember why John Kerry lost Ohio?

As Terje correctly emphasizes, McClurkin was hired to be an entertainer, not a spokesperson or policymaker for Obama. Unless a very different line is crossed - a line I'll describe in a minute - I simply don't believe in firing entertainers for their personal beliefs, no matter how wrongheaded. In the old days there was a word for such firings: blacklisting.

The line that I just referred to that was not crossed here is that McClurkin is not an advocate, so far as anyone has been able to point out, for laws that discriminate against gays or otherwise harm gays. All of the David Duke, KKK, and Hitler analogies are, for that reason, wrong and inane. They are as simple minded as anything Sean Hannity peddles. Those who keep pressing those analogies are advertising to the world that their minds are incapable of making fine distinctions. As one way to see how off the analogy is, can you imagine David Duke ever endorsing someone with Obama's politics? I didn't think so.

Sorry, but I have come to conclude that, from the perspective of someone very supportive of gay rights and gay marriage, the leaders of what passes for the official gay community look like toddlers throwing a temper tantrum and not serious participants in American political debate. I doubt their views reflect the rank and file of ordinary gay people. Worse, the leaders appear to be unprincipled. I'll take back the unprincipled part, but not the rest, if HRC and other advocacy groups now take the time to scrutinize the list of every person whose endorsement Hillary and John Edwards have sought and embraced, and then relentlessly hound those other candidates to disavow the impure endorsers. By the way, I'd like to see Greg Sargent start doing his homework and scouring for impure endorsers as well, since he's been an aider and abetter of this utter bullsh*t story.

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 10:38 PM:

party-of-one, horizonr, bob, Terje, tbhull, Richard L. Adloff -

Let me summarize their response to the fact that Saint Barry is supporting a homophobe singer in his attempt to out-pander The Evil One herself:

Here goes:

"Buh . . . Buh . . . But . . . What about Hillary!?!"

Well, I hear Hillary is hiring Al Jolsen who is in the midst of resurrecting . . .

uh . . .

his career, and he's going to sing the national anthem in blackface at one of her campaign appearances.

After all, dude could really sing!

August J. Pollak wrote on October 24, 2007 10:51 PM:

I think you need better headlines. "Big Gay Rights Group?"

I'm super, thanks for asking!

John Crandell wrote on October 24, 2007 10:55 PM:

If I were Obama, I'd be more concerned over being associated with a self confessed (reformed/self delusional) former c**k-sucker, rather than a deluded bigot.

Sock Puppet wrote on October 24, 2007 10:57 PM:

How about this for a thought experiment to test whether you have become too self-righteous and partisan for your own good.

A Republican candidate barnstorms with some very popular rock or pop singers. One of them is an atheist, and not just an atheist but one who, like Bill Maher, often says that religious people are stupid and that they are like children who believe in the tooth fairy. The hypothetical singer believes in most of the Republican platform but obviously has a different orientation on matters of religion and faith. (There are Republicans like this. If you've ever met an obsessive Ayn Rand fan, there's a good chance the person is both an atheist and a Republican.). The singer, however, has never advocated any policy that would discriminate against religious people or deny religious people freedom of religion or any other civil rights.

Well, it turns out that the candidate's campaign people enlisted him on the pop-rock tour and the candidate did not know about the anti-religious statements of the supporter but becomes aware of them when a Christian Coalition type group starts demanding the person be kicked off the tour. The candidate caves and fires the anti-religious atheist.

Wouldn't you all view that candidate as a complete douchebag, and not as a principled Christian? Wouldn't you even see quasi-totalitarian tendencies in such a candidate, who would extend political orthodoxy even to the choice of who sings on their behalf? Of course you would. And that candidate would rightly be the laughing stock of this and every other liberal blog. We'd be piling on, and I for one would enjoy the piling on.

Look in the mirror, zealots. Be objective about what you are seeing on this issue.

I'm with the commenter above who hopes that Obama now drives his willingness to resist HRC's and Aravapois' Mau-Mauing and extortion to his political advantage. It won't be hard to do.

It probably won't happen, precisely because Obama is about the most fair-minded and truly tolerant candidate we've seen in a while, and because he hates driving wedges between groups even when it would give him a boost.

Sorry for turning now to mushiness, but I can still recall how surprised I was when I was listening to his 2004 speech and he included gays in his vision for the inclusive America that he wished to see ("We have gay friends in the Red States"), even though he plainly did not have to bring up gays in a speech of that nature.

By turning this guy away, HRC, you are really screwing your own long term cause.

Leon723 wrote on October 24, 2007 11:06 PM:

Anonymous at 10:38 p.m.: You are so right in saying that Obama's hiring McClurkin to sing gospel is EXACTLY like hiring a perfomer to sing in blackface! Why there is NO DISTINCTION at all. I'm bowled over by your brilliance.

Since irony probably is lost on you, I'll earnestly lay out the difference: If your act as an entertainer is singing in blackface, your act itself is horribly offensive and should not be part of a performance at an event -- even if your actual views on all the issues are all perfectly progressive. No one has alleged that when McClurkin takes to the stage with his act, he sings anti-gay songs or spreads an anti-gay message.

So get over yourself, anonymous at 10:38, people like Terje are not missing a point that only you are brilliant enough to see.

tbhull wrote on October 24, 2007 11:28 PM:

Anonymous wrote on October 24, 2007 10:38 PM:

As you moniker so aptly demonstrates, it is not about individuals such as HRC or Obama. It is about issues and personal freedom. In this regard passing laws to protect gays is so inconsequential when compared to eliminating large scale invasions of privacy undertaken by the NSA and the telco industry, as if real and meaningful distinctions can be made. Simply put, the issue of legislation to protect gay rights pales in comparison, both in a narrow political sense and in the large sense of freedom for all, when compared to telco retroactive immunity and government warrantless wiretaps. I guess wires and software do not make the news like Senators, brother blumpkins rusty trombones and felching.

Wahle Peoples wrote on October 24, 2007 11:29 PM:

Terje - Your comments are the best I've seen on this topic. Great summary. Suggest you also post it on the other blog sites carrying this story. We really need to get re-focused on the real issues affecting each of our communities--and this is not it!

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 12:06 AM:

People keep on talking about Obama opening a dialogue, but I don't see that happening. He's trying to have it both ways, which is far from having a conversation. He's triangulating.. ugh.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 12:08 AM:

Leon723

Unlike you, I'll avoid the personal attacks and the personal attack snark that you seem to favor and just try to address the issue (resisting the urge to say that obviously e-mail manners are lost on you).

Yes, allowing an avowed homophobe a prominent role at your event makes a statement. That's what HRC recognizes.

Second, my use of Al Jolson was a lame attempt at a joke. Lighten up. If I was to be more accurate in my joke, I should have said, the NAACP criticized Hillary Clinton for having noted gospel singer and avowed racist David Duke, on the schedule to sing at a Hillary fundraiser.

She responded by reiterating her committment to including blacks in her vision of American society.

Better?

Sheesh.

Juanito 4th Inf. VietNAM wrote on October 25, 2007 12:09 AM:

hey folks, check out John Ridley's eminent post on the Huff-Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/donnie-mcclurkin-and-perf_b_69772.html

he says all that needs to be said, with far fewer words than some of the comments hereabouts.

super wrote on October 25, 2007 12:32 AM:

Hillary,shes a strong woman,she believes in equal rights.for all.so dont forget that,and forget Obama he stated his views,he doesnt like us,and we can be cured,hes full of it...al josen is a great singer way back when ,and bill was on his saxaphone...Im sure ellens voting for her because she is fair for us gays,and civil unions,Hillary had some humor on the show i like that when ellen said im gay shes go What/i laughed so Hillary has nothing against us,not at all...obama playing the white card the black card the gay card,and maybe an islamic card,he thinks he is god.i dont trust him after this .hes probably been associated with mccl,for awhile now..hey we are all Human has he every said that no... hillary has,Our votes count,I just went to her site last night,shes Intelligent thats for sure.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 12:57 AM:

Andrew Sullivan posts something that I hadn't seen before and I'm wondering if there is any truth to it:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-calls-sol.html

pacc wrote on October 25, 2007 1:08 AM:

Bullshit Barry tries to blame it on staffers for failing to fully vet the performers... and then we find out that bullshit Barry met the homophobic nut case at Oprah's blowjob fundraiser.

I say we round things out and bring in a couple of Grand Wizards. We could stage a few mock hangings and cross burnings, too. Then balance things with a Rabbi and a Black preacher.

Santos wrote on October 25, 2007 4:11 AM:

tbhull: "In this regard passing laws to protect gays is so inconsequential when compared to eliminating large scale invasions of privacy undertaken by the NSA and the telco industry"

POedLib: "I hope that Obama just tells the gay wacks to take a flying jump. They are out of control."

I don't normally comment here, but these comments just take the cake. Of course "the gays" should be thrown under the bus so we can pass "more important" legislation, which is always what the commenter thinks is the most important. No prizes for guessing what tbhull's orientation is, since he evidently has no sympathy whatsoever for the discrimination that LGBT people face.

It's depressing that this incident has revealed how willing some people are to ignore bigoted pandering if it concerns their chosen candidate.

John Crandell wrote on October 25, 2007 4:54 AM:

We hear the dreaded rush of air escaping and if Ann Coulter should declare her everlasting love for the reverend, the senator will have one flat tire of a campaign. In the age of Foley-Craig-Haggard, isn't it simply clear that McClurken is gaming the system? NOW is the time for John Edwards to make a big move in a big, imaginative way and such a move would have nothing to do with the subject of the reverend. With all of the mendacity, corruption and indescribable sorrow wrought by Bush and Cheney, he need only refocus his sight on the true target: an adle-brained chief executive and a monstrous puppeteer.

elrapierwit wrote on October 25, 2007 6:09 AM:

The way HRC has come out against Obama on this and the way gay advocates are hammering away on this issue is absolutely ridiculous.

What it says is that gay advocates and activists are the equivalent of the religious/evangelical wing of the GOP.

Most Americans are going to view this stance by HRC as extreme as the Dobson/Falwell crowd demanding specific judges for the Supreme Court.

Extremist groups are not tolerated in America and gay advocacy groups are suceeding in making themselves extremist to their detriment.

At this juncture it is politically beneficial for the Democrats to simply drop all gay agenda issues as the group is unwilling to be tolerant of the diversity of views.

How HRC has distorted and misconstrued this issue is an outrage and hopefully they will be penalized for it. McClurkin is a singer and he is not incite or inflamming hate against homosexuals. The entire anti-gay accusation is nothing but a smear.

Santos, there are far more important issues than supporting the HRC blacklist American entertainers for their views on homosexuality.
HRC needs to condemned for their lack of tolerance.

In the meantime, the black community is going to keep right on believing their Baptist faith and McClurkin is going to continue to win awards as a gospel singer.

HRC looses this issue big time and it may become a huge political cost as well, hopefully so.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 6:39 AM:

mjames says "Is Obama gonna have some southern white male neo-nazis appear with him next - as an opportunity for a "dialogue?" I don't think the South has a lock on neo-nazis, there are plenty in Obama's home state of Illinois.

Bigots are bigots irrespective of their gender,race, politics or geography. They seem pretty well dispursed across the nation. There are plenty of Northeastern liberal bigots, mjames. You can recognize them by the false stereotypes they promote.

anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 6:39 AM:

mjames says "Is Obama gonna have some southern white male neo-nazis appear with him next - as an opportunity for a "dialogue?" I don't think the South has a lock on neo-nazis, there are plenty in Obama's home state of Illinois.

Bigots are bigots irrespective of their gender,race, politics or geography. They seem pretty well dispursed across the nation. There are plenty of Northeastern liberal bigots, mjames. You can recognize them by the false stereotypes they promote.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 6:41 AM:

party-of-one wrote on October 24, 2007 8:03 PM:

Either the Human Rights Campaign or Hillary Rhodam Clinton needs to get some new intials. HRC doesn't work for both.

LOL. When it is all said and done, Senator Obama will be having nightmares about being ganged up on and pursued by three gigantic letters of the alphabet. He'll then take to the Senate floor to make a case for a legislation declaring the letters H, R, and C public threats that must be stricken from the American English alphabet.

On a more serious note, Obama needed this fiasco as much as he needed a root canal, so that it was his interest to diffuse it as expeditiously as possible. But, as he has done so far in this campaign, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too...He wanted to have it both ways. He denounced McClurkin's bigotry but would not "physically" dissociate from him. He "opposed" the Iraq war but voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate it. He co-sponsored a legislation that had the most objectionable element of the K-L bill but then skipped the vote on the latter, before turning around and criticizing those who voted for his bill...I mean the K-L bill. He skipped the vote on the condemnation of MoveOn for the "General Betray Us" ad, and then turned around to pontificate about how that vote was a travesty...both sides, depending upon which way the wind is blowing. Agree with her or not, Hillary has been consistent.

Senator Obama is a smart, gifted and charismatic politician, who will accomplish great things for America... as soon as he matures a bit more. As these incidents have demonstrated, he does not have the political skills or leadership qualities to be trusted to return the ship of state to safer waters after the mess that the current Village Idiot's administration is sure to leave behind. We'll need a steadier hand than Sen. Obama's to stir the ship of state. He should have waited another 8 years before running for POTUS, as just 4 years ago he was a little know Senator, whose only claim to fame was his oratorically electrifying address at the 2004 Dem Convention. One does not go from high-school to a CEO position in a fortune 500 company overnight...gotta first "do time." In 2012, Sen. Obama would look, act, sound and, with his great intellect, have the acumen of a statesman, who would be able to make a case that he has the leadership qualities and experience to be the Leader of the Free World. Right now, he'd be a bad choice to take over after the Bush/Cheney debacles (plural) of the last 8 years.

Believe it or not, Senator Obama's appeal to many is his naïveté, which, while it is undoubtedly "fresh" and made him seem like a "new kind of politician", it is hardly the stuff for a post-GWB POTUS. His lack of experience, leadership, and consistency has been made manifest by how he has so far botched the gospel-singer-gate...If can't handle this teapot, how can he be trusted to handle the tempest that ranging all over the world?

DTM wrote on October 25, 2007 7:08 AM:

I have nothing to add to what Terje said on the main issue. I just wanted to note that my sense is that for all the attempts of John Aravosis and TPMElection Central to carry out the Karl Rove agenda by turning this into a wedge issue, they have failed.

In fact, as others have noted, Greg grossly misrepresented the HRC's statement, apparently in a last-ditch effort to keep the wedge driving. And I strongly suspect that the HRC recognized that to retain credibility with their supporters, they could not in fact go so far as to "condemn" Obama for refusing to shun McClurkin, while at the exact same time calling for a dialogue with him.

As a final thought, the silver lining in all this is that I think the Democratic coalition just faced and passed a major test of its long term viability. And inadvertently, by trying to do the Republican Party's job for them, Avarosis and TPMElection Central probably did end up making it harder for the Republican Party to do it themselves down the road.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 7:19 AM:

I think that I mixed my metaphors!

"If he can't handle this teapot, how can he be trusted to handle the tempest that is ranging all over the world?"

I meant:

teapot as in "little water boiling in a teapot".. vs. tempest. I think that most understood what I meant.

loki wrote on October 25, 2007 7:52 AM:

So DTM...

For all your doom and gloom about "wedge issues"-- are you now sort of in a backhanded kinda way saying, "I was wrong."? ;^}

Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 7:52 AM:

dcshungu, back on the clock again. Very funny posts. Do you really believe the stuff that you write? It's comical. At a minimum, you deserve a raise for creativity. Mrs. bill is "experienced," has the "cahones," etc. Very funny.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 8:00 AM:

Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 7:52 AM:

dcshungu, back on the clock again. Very funny posts. Do you really believe the stuff that you write? It's comical. At a minimum, you deserve a raise for creativity. Mrs. bill is "experienced," has the "cahones," etc. Very funny.

Does this pass for a rebuttal of anything that I wrote? (that was a rhetorical question)...

raj wrote on October 25, 2007 8:12 AM:

Obama's problem is that McClurkin is not the only anti-gay act on his tour. There are at least two others that have been identified on other web sites.

Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 8:14 AM:

Nope, just an observation. It's hard to rebut mush and distortions, with someone who refuses to address substance. You're boss must think that you are the greatest. Incidentally, you're posts, jans, and colon merely serve to turn off people from considering voting for your boss. I would suggest that you advise your boss to try some new tactics, like laying off the ridiculous unwarranted attacks when someone questions her credentials or non-existent policy positions, take a substantive position on issues and address directly, clearly and concisely the mountain of problems addressing our country. Basically, either address substance or shut-up.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 9:40 AM:

Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 8:14 AM:

Nope, just an observation. It's hard to rebut mush and distortions, with someone who refuses to address substance. You're boss must think that you are the greatest. Incidentally, you're posts, jans, and colon merely serve to turn off people from considering voting for your boss. I would suggest that you advise your boss to try some new tactics, like laying off the ridiculous unwarranted attacks when someone questions her credentials or non-existent policy positions, take a substantive position on issues and address directly, clearly and concisely the mountain of problems addressing our country. Basically, either address substance or shut-up.

You wouldn't know "substance" if it hit you in the face. BTW, do they serve booze this early where you live? Just wondering...

elrpaierwit wrote on October 25, 2007 9:44 AM:

Raj
HRC's problem is that everyone who pays attention to this issue in the least understands that having an opposing view does not make individuals ANTI-gay.

When you try to smear people for having an opinion different from yours moderates, independents and reasonable people think only that the accuser is irrational, bellicose and unthinkably stupid.

tbhull wrote on October 25, 2007 9:45 AM:

Santos wrote on October 25, 2007 4:11 AM:

Yes protection of the poor old gays, more laws and more government can and must take a back seat to a government out of control. The Constitution limits government and grants inalienable rights to the people. The current government's disregard for these rights must cease immediately and this requires attention now. Some may bitch, moan and or toss a sissy bitch hissy fit screaming in vain otherwise, but this same Constitution neither dictates, nor bestows any special protection for gays/lesbians. Thus, garden variety pedestrian legislation protecting gays should be relegated to mere bathhouse conversation unless and until much more important issues such as warrantless wiretaps and mass e-mail searches are addressed.

Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 9:55 AM:

dcshungu, I sure wouldn't learn any substance about your boss from reading your drivel. Repeatedly, I and others have tried to engage with you in a substantive discussion about a given issue and to ascertain mrs. bill's position. In response, all we have gotten is drivel and personal attacks. Too funny. By the way, when does jan or colon take over from you today? When are you off the clock, you started early this morning. Just wondering . . .

Peace.

Joel wrote on October 25, 2007 10:07 AM:

elrpaierwit wrote: "everyone who pays attention to this issue in the least understands that having an opposing view does not make individuals ANTI-gay"

Nice try at softening up McClurkin's statements, or ignoring them altogether.

I know a lot of people, including some family members, who simply disagree with me on gay matters. On the theological front, some feel it's a sin. On the civil rights front, some simply support civil unions (or the status quo) instead of gay marriage.

That's disagreement.

That isn't what McClurkin has done. He has smeared gays and lesbians:

* “Homosexuality has really ravished our children. It started in my generation. I was touched by it and I struggled with it and all that for years and there was nobody to deal with it. I started dealing with it in my sermons and even when we do our concerts.” (An interview with www.FamilyChristian.com)

* “Everybody is going to the same hell. The religious hypocrite will go to the same hell as the murderer and homosexual. My job is to say that sin is wrong and kill the sin, not the sinner.” (The Voice, 16 July 2001)

* Commenting on New York City’s Harvey Milk School, which caters to gay students, he said, “The gloves are off. And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose.” (CBN, 700 Club Sept. 23, 2003)

I'm gay. I don't "ravish children," my life doesn't equate with "the murderer" and I don't deserve a "gloves off" war against me.

That's what McClurkin believes, and it goes beyond respectful disagreement.

anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 5:13 PM:

Hate? Who is actually "hating?"

In reading all the comments, I note that only those who are pro-gay use the term "hate." Nowhere have I read (and I did a lot of searching on McClurkin) that he "hates" anyone. For all of you who have condemened Obama's association with McClurken, where can I find reference to him saying that he hates homosexuals? If that is not that case, then please help me to understand: are you suggesting that anyone who simply does not agree with homosexuality HATES homosexuals? If that is the case, is it also true that anyone who is pro-choice hate children?

GayLover wrote on December 29, 2007 9:18 PM:

Why don't you check the facts and stop spreading lies. A little child told McClurkin that an adult was molesting him, and he replied "we are not playing with them who are trying to kill our children." Are you pedophiles? If not, then what's your point? He can't be gay if gays are angry with him!

Also, Christians don't use the term "cured", they say "healed." It's from the bible. This is why your anger is falling on deaf ears. You can't fight truth with lies. You won't win. Try reading the bible BEFORE you challenge it. If that don't work, see which one of your friends, lovers, partners, significant others, life long buddies etc. etc. you can borrow air from when you're laying in a coffin.

john hurt wrote on January 19, 2008 9:42 AM:

I have followed Donnie McClurin closely and not once has he stated he hates gays. You really need to educate yourself on his background and hear what he sayings rather than all the lies and half truths of the comments I have read here. He has a great deal of compassion for Gays and has given much of his life to try to help. Forget the hate you are directing toward him and speak the facts,

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)