A serious question that has bothered me for awhile

[dsc]

Why don't gay concerns get the same treatment as other concerns? Why is it OK for Wright to be angry but not for us to be angry? You won't find any threads by me condemning Wright, or for that matter defending Ferraro. I didn't even jump into the Johnson/King contraversy. The simple reason I didn't, is that I understand that I don't know what it is like being black and don't feel I should lecture blacks about what is and isn't racist. So my simple question, is why aren't gay posters here accorded the same respect? Why should we be lectured to?

When we bring up McClurkin we are faux gays who really love Hillary. When we ask why, in a speech that is about unity, we didn't make the cut, people say that neither did Sikhs in India. When we point out that we don't like being called sinners, we are told we are sinners so sit down and shut up. Or we get told to vote for John McCain. I get why people were upset with Ferraro's comments. Why shouldn't we get to be angry with McClurkins, or Obama's when we think they aren't what they should be? Don't we count?

[boston bean]

1. True dat DSC, he is the biggest sham this nation has ever seen. No one I know is buying "the speech

[Tesha]

46. That's because everyone you know is probably a paid Clinton staffer.

Or a Republican.

You need to get out more.

Tesha

[leftynyc]

50. Good luck with that unity thing (n/t)

[Tesha]

52. There are a bunch of people here in GD:P who've made it clear they're not interested in unity.

I perceive the person I replied to to be one of those
people -- YMMV.

Tesha

[leftynyc]

53. If you aren't part of the solution

You're part of the problem. Unity has to start somewhere.

[Tesha]

55. Okay, let's all unite behind Gore. (NT)

[leftynyc]

57. Now you're talking!!!

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Tesha]

58. ;-) (NT)

[redqueen]

2. I think you have every right to be angry about those things...

I wish he had included the line about dividing straights from gays that I've heard him use before.

[dsc]

4. He has used that before

which makes its absense from this speech all the more galling.

[redqueen]

9. I can certainly see that...

:pals:

I hope it wasn't hurtful for you, personally... but I can see how it would be.

[keep_it_real]

3. What gay has made an "inflammatory" or "incendiary" speech?

[dsc]

5. haven't been to an act up meeting lately I take it

seriously, if a gay ever runs for POTUS you'll find out what kind of inflamatory things gays have said and done.

[keep_it_real]

21. The same with the Obama church

As long as Obama was not running for President the MSM did not care one bit what was said in his church the same as you say gays have made inflammatory and incendiary remarks behind closed doors or even in public; no one cares unless you are running for President then it becomes important to the MSM.

[dsc]

33. seen coverage of a Pride parade recently

seriously, of course people care more now about Rev Wright than they used to. But I have been in several black churches so it wasn't too shocking to me. Though the Christmas day sermon about Lewinski did strike me as creepy.

[Maraya1969]

43. I really think it is the Republican spin machine causing all this faux

outrage. I guess when we have a gay person run for president in the future the same will happen.


Right before Wright's remarks came out I got an email talking about how Obama was Muslim and attended an anti Christian school as a child and blah blah blah let's try and appeal to people's fear of some other people's religion.

How much have you heard in the MSM about Hagee and his desire to start a war with Iran so as to bring about the first book of the "Left Behind" series? (The tribulation or Jesus coming back to earth, whatever you call it).

And look at how they tried to sweep Ted Hagard under the rug.

I think it is all politics. The Republicans want to win at all costs; we all know that so they create all sorts of hysteria...like Barack not wearing a fucking American flag made in China pin on his lapel.

I'm bisexual so I know what it is like to be discriminated against because of your sexuality. And I know that men have it worse.

i don't know what else to say. :grouphug:

[leftynyc]

51. Nothing faux about my outrage

Rev Wright/Rev Hagee - two sides of the same coin. One blames whites for everyting, the other blames gays and feminists. Both are religious freaks and I make no distinction between them.

[donheld]

42. Damn, "Act-up" How many chapters of that group are left anyway?

That goes way back.

[maddiejoan]

12. That would be me

[LSparkle]

6. I was disappointed that Obama didn't include LGBT ...

but this speech was about "race" so maybe he felt that was enough
to handle in one day (especially with the Wright controversy that
needed to be dealt with ASAP).

I think in his heart Obama believes in equality for ALL -- and that means
all genders, all sexual orientations, all races, all faiths, all economic
strata. Hopefully he'll give plenty of future speeches that will stress
that kind of unity.

[redqueen]

11. That's how I was looking at it...

but I can also understand the feeling of being forgotten or left out.

[dsc]

34. Honestly I am more upset over reaction to a critic of that here

than of him leaving it out in the first place.

[JVS]

7. Isn't this whole scandal because people aren't OK with Wright being angry?

[keep_it_real]

24. That's all it is an expresson of anger; not hate but anger.

[Bonobo]

8. Blacks and whites need to speak without fear and timidity, right? Same for gays/heteros, no?

I mean, it's hard to talk about.
I'm straight and afraid I'll be called anti-gay if I say anything.
Maybe gay people feel similarly that they cannot speak or will be considered unloyal democrats? I don't know.

But I do know this, I don't feel like many of the GLBT posters welcome ANYTHING from heteros, so ofte we just shut our mouths. But maybe a dialog is needed? Just a thought...

[dsc]

13. I haven't followed your posts in particular

so I can't comment on what may or may not have been said to you. But trust me, striaght folk overall haven't been shy. That said, I have no problem with legitimate criticism. I do have problems with being told to vote for McCain, being called a faux gay, a racist, or being told that I am a single issue voter.

[tpsbmam]

26. I'm not sure you should take it as having anything to do with you being gay....

the snarky responses to you, that is. I've never put people on ignore before today and I put a bunch of them on ignore today. And it wasn't just Clinton supporters I put on ignore. You have every right to your opinion and as long as it's expressed as respectfully as it is here, I'll read and listen. We may agree or disagree but hell, that's what makes politics go around. But the nasty, snarky posts (e.g., vote for McCain) are just not worth my BP anymore and I've finally decided to ignore them. All of that said, I'm not sure that Obama necessarily should have included LBGT in this speech today but I'm not in your shoes. If I were, I might have been more sensitive to it and might be agreeing with you right now. As you can tell, I'm an Obama supporter but I, too, am not entirely thrilled with his LGBT stance.

[Bake]

47. I don't feel any need to be "shy" about my support of all my brothers and sisters

And I was proud to stand with you on the McClurkin issue, and will continue to do so in the future.

Bake

[maddiejoan]

16. You could always dialogue

with your queer sister over these issues, I'm sure she'd be happy to share her feelings with you if you are sincerely interested.

Just a thought.

[Bonobo]

20. I wasn't speaking strictly from a personal standpoint but to the larger issue of communication.

Thanks.

[maddiejoan]

22. communication and understanding

begin small.

[Bonobo]

25. I have no problem with my understanding.

Thanks.

[patrice]

31. Speaking is a Key and speaking the right words is another Key.

Too often, saying anything at all on some Issues is SOOOOOOO forbiden that when a person DOES speak s/he thinks that is all that matters, when, in fact, of all of the millions of things a person could say (and feel more or less good about it), what you've got to do is find the exactly right thing to say. The great liberating educator Paolo Freire said some important things about "true words" in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

[chyjo]

10. I think in regards to this I believe I should point at

that I believe the United Church of Christ is the most outspoken in support of gay-rights in the country, this including its Chicago chapter that Obama was a member of. I have many gay friends and most of the ones that do attend church services go to the UCC. Why do John McCain and Hillary Clinton go belong to churchs that are so condemning of homosexuality?

[dsc]

14. The Methodist church isn't that bad

though it has taken some bad turns lately. She may belong to a reconsiling Methodist church, which would be actually pretty good. The UCC is very good though. I don't know, yes I should but I don't, which church McCain belongs to so I can't comment on his church.

[chyjo]

18. He was Episcopalian

which is definitely one of the top churches as far as gay-rights is concerned(ordaining gays for example), but before the election started he magically converted to Baptist. Which coincidentally coincides with his now snuggling up to the Religious right.

[maddiejoan]

17. Hillary's church

"The Foundry" in Mt. Pleasant is very gay-friendly.

[Samantha]

15. I think ALL PEOPLE count

I think I am out of the mainstream on this issue, but I would like to respond to your questions. I hope you don't flame me if you don't like my response, but I am sincere.

But first of all, I want to clarify, I respect all DU posters (except for the disruptors, of course) regardless of race, sexual preference, or religion (or absence thereof). I am a live and let-live type of person, despite having been raised in a very Conservative household and tutored in religion by 18 long years of thrice-weekly required church attendance.

In the specific area of sexual preference, I think that's a private matter. Because I have such respect for people's privacy, perhaps I do not stand up and champion the rights of gays and lesbians as I should because I assume most people are like me. I hope I said that clearly.

However, when in conversations this issue is raised, I do state that I feel a person's sexual preference is simply not society's business. In the 90s, I thought Bill Clinton's extramarital relationships were not my business.

In that same vein, I feel Barack Obama's relationship with his pastor and his church is a very private matter, and should not be open to political examination.

I have seen some of your posts, and while I don't always agree with you, sometimes I do. But my opinion of you is based on your political viewpoints as posted here, and your sexual preferences, and religious bents are simply not my concern (read business).

Perhaps your disappointment lies in the fact that many like me do not stand up and passionately champion your rights. I am going to have to think about that possibility. If that's your concern, I understand.

[dsc]

19. No flames

but think on this. I presume you have either been married or at least dating seriously enough that you were a couple with someone at one time. Imagine never letting anyone know with whom you are married. That is what keeping being gay from ones society would entail. It would also entail not letting people know what you did on some weekends or what movie you went to see on a given night. But my broader point is that I think all of our concerns should be treated as if they might be valid. Not as if we are simply making crap up.

[patrice]

23. Bigotry and hate unite all forms of prejudice. They're all the same thing articulated in different

ways that are determined by situational factors. The situational factors at this particular time added up to a focus on Racism. One wonders what factors it would take to create this sort of opportunity to have a national discussion about hatred harbored against non-conventional Genders.

Nothing we "do" about Racism will work if we don't adress the roots of the tree that also gives us Homophobia, Misogyny, Religious bigotry and . . . .

[Renew Deal]

27. You've earned today's gay baiting award.

Congrats. :eyes:

[dsc]

28. gee proof of my point

[Renew Deal]

29. That your incessant bashing of Obama is transparent?

Point taken.

You said "Why shouldn't we get to be angry with McClurkins, or Obama's when we think they aren't what they should be? Don't we count?"

You've complained about McClurkin over and over and over and over and over again. You have a right to complain about anything you want. You count and people have taken your complaints seriously. But at what point does it cross over from honest complaints to cheap political attacks? You seem to have crossed that threshold.

[dsc]

30. and how many Ferraro threads were there?

how many Johnson threads? Jesse Jackson threads? I am willing to bet there have been fewer McClurkin threads posted by me than Ferraro threads.

[Renew Deal]

32. I don't know and it doesn't matter.

It doesn't make your concerns any less important.

[Beregond2]

35. Gay

Well, I'm gay, and I have found the incessant McClurkin complaints absurd. It was explained and dealt with. To keep using that as an excuse to flame the best candidate the Democrats have had in my lifetime is inexcusable. It definitely smacks of "one-issue-ism," as does the Hillary meme that any criticism of her is sexist. And it certainly does not warrant the same level of attention the Ferraro comments received. Those were blatant, deliberate racist attacks by a major political figure.

Believe me, I understand what it is to feel that "my" issue is being given short shrift. I don't know how old you are, but I have been dealing with gay issues since the sixties, and I can't see any reason to feel that that has been the case on this board. Had Obama taken an anti-gay position, I would be the first to insist his feet be held to the fire. But that is simply not the case here. Why go looking for problems that don't exist, when there are so many real issues to deal with? Save your anger for the Repugs, who have deliberately fanned the flames of homophobia to achieve their political ends. That is where this energy should be directed; not at a minor incident that has long since been laid to rest.

[dsc]

36. It is absurd to say he hasn't taken an anti gay position

they both have (neither supports same sex marriage). And no, McClurkin hasn't been dealt with. I respect that you have decided to ignore it, that is your perogative. But Obama has never admitted what he did, nor apologize for it.

[JoFerret]

45. Being heard on an important issue

might be one answer.
Gay people pointing out heterosexism is over your threshold it seems.

Every gay person had more than just a grandmother condemning and disapproving of their identity. They had the whole vocal family. And in a hell of a lot nastier language too.

[joshcryer]

44. You digust me.

dsc is a good, well meaning poster who never attempts to start flame wars. She's hardly ever in GDP and rightly so.

The cesspool that is GDP is full of ignorant and hateful comments like your own.

[Liberal Veteran]

37. I think you'll be a lot happier when you stop sweating the small stuff.

Obama is not anti-gay. He has spoken out against homophobia not only in America, but in his own community. He has gone further than Hillary when it comes to policy statements on GLBT equality.

But it's never enough. I understand your anger over McClurkin. I was beside myself for a few days over it too. But that was six months ago and he has denounced and condemned McClurkin's views on homosexuality.

What is it that you want from him? A pound of flesh?

We've certainly gotten more of an apology for an ultimately pissing in the wind statement of that McClurkin incident than we have ever gotten from the Clintons for DOMA or DADT.

Throughout history, oppressed people generally defended themselves and led their own movements. Susan B. Anthony championed for women's right to vote. Martin Luther King Jr and many other African-Americans (including Rosa Parks and Malcolm X) championed equality for African-Americans. The Women's liberation movement was largely women.

If you are expecting Hillary or Obama or Kucinich or Edwards or Gore or anyone to be the MLK of our fight for equality, then you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

We already trusted the Clintons with the issue and they bungled it fairly well (along with something I care just as much about: universal health care).

I trust Obama more on the issue of equality because the Clintons already have a track record on this issue and I have absolutely no reason to assume they will be our advocate in the White House a second time around.

I don't believe either of them are unsympathetic to our cause, but I think Obama has the right stuff to be a leader, not just an able administrator. He has the personality and oratory skills and the ability to inspire people that sadly, Sen. Clinton is lacking in. She may be competent, but isn't inspiring and she hardly seems like the kind of person who can make people listen to her.

[boppers]

38. When did being gay become a "race"?

The speech was on the topic of race, IIRC.

Bringing up McClurkin, at this point, pretty much leads me to believe that some posters much more concerned about their candidate than the issues.

Here, something else you can all ignore while you pretend to be talking about issues, not candidates:
His church was the first Christian church to ordain gay clergy and approve gay marriages.

[dsc]

39. no they weren't the first

the Metropolitian Community Church was. It dates from the 1970's and had gay clergy from the get go. The UCC didn't do gay clergy until the 1980's.

[Jamastiene]

40. Off to the Greatest Page with you.

:thumbsup:

[Firespirit]

41. I'm going to answer your question as honestly as I can

Full disclosure: I am an Obama supporter, and I live in a deep blue state and probably would leave the Presidential race blank if Hillary was the nominee. This was a decision I made before she even entered the race. It is based on some things that she and her associates did to John Kerry in 2004 and 2006, and it is indeed personal, so I'm not persuadable on it.

I have a serious objection with some Obama supporters who tell LGBT people to shut up and go away, that they cost Democrats elections. I think he will be the nominee and it's thus extremely arrogant and inappropriate for his supporters to denigrate an entire group of people when they should be reaching out.

You do count, you do have a right to be angry about the remarks of anyone who expresses intolerance. However, there have been several DU posters self-identifying as gay who are crossing the line. It's over the line to say that Obama is part of a homophobic racial group. It's over the line to say that he's a fundie, or a Republican, or that LGBT people will see their civil rights regress under an Obama administration. There's no evidence for it, and saying it just puts Obama supporters on the defensive. It's a two-way street.

I'm fully on board with marriage rights. I think that my specific case kind of reveals the sheer stupidity of the anti-marriage argument, in fact. I'm non-sexual but am still interested in a life partnership, and it could be with a person of either sex. I live in MA, so it wouldn't matter whether I decided to marry a man or a woman, but if I moved to almost any other state, it would be an issue. I can tell this to the anti-marriage people, that I would have no interest in sexual relations, so if their problem with equal marriage is the Puritan translation of their holy book that was rewritten to prohibit specific sex acts, then on what basis do they deny me the right to marry another woman? They are at a loss, and generally shift the subject to making personal attacks on me for "refusing God's gift of sex." Therefore, what it comes down to with this type of individual is not a specific hate of gay people, but a profound fear and hate of anyone who is different.

The good thing is that they are on the decline. The younger generation has grown up in a culture where it's OK to be gay, and they support equal marriage. They are the largest generation in history, and when they get full political power -- something they are reaching for with their propulsion of Obama to frontrunner status -- then they will overturn the amendments that the intolerant generations enacted. I remember when the coming-out episode of Ellen's sitcom was a nationwide controversy. It seems laughable now. Even in a decade under neocon rule, the social acceptance and normality of gays has improved dramatically. Equal rights will come and they will come soon. We're heading in the right direction and I cannot see any way to regress on it, short of annihilating the majority of Generation Y.

This last bit is the sort of thing that many gay DUers object to most strongly. And again, some Obama supporters here have been unacceptably callous and dismissive in what they say. However, there is a grain of truth to their argument, at least I think so. The election won't be a zero-sum game. No one should ever think it's necessary to ask gay people to sacrifice their quest for legal equality. However, when it comes to the issues that are discussed on the campaign stump, marriage just does not rate above everything else. Many people fear we are heading into another Depression, or another war. Many fear that we are becoming a fascist dictatorship. There are legitimate reasons to feel this way. The issues where current events are heading in the wrong direction are simply going to get more stump time, because they are heading in the wrong direction. Equality for LGBT people needs to happen, but it is progressing. You deal with the things that are completely falling apart and then you improve the ones that aren't.

Thanks for reading.

[casus belli]

48. Nobody's telling you you can't be angry...

but nobody's saying that people have to listen either.

Tone is key.

[Romulox]

49. Look at how working class whites are treated--identity politics, by definition, are exclusionary

and divisive.

[Texas Hill Country]

54. LGBT and womens issues commonly get ignored... its sad. All I have to say to that is...

[denem]

56. Serious Answer "he is the biggest sham this nation has ever seen".

The first answer on this thread. That's the level of discourse usually seen in an LGBT/Obama/McClurkin thread.

Obama has not just offended LGBT people. He's made serious enemies who now find nothing offensive in calling him 'Barry'. No faux gay, but seriously pissed off people who will do everything to defeat him.

Gay concerns, anger, bitterness are more than justified. As far as I know one does not routinely get executed in Sharia law countries for being black, white or beige.

The politics of McClurkin is a no win. He apologises - and publicizes his tin ear to those who have never even heard of McClurkin. The travesty being around at the time was watching the train wreck in slow motion. Then all the worst fears confirmed. Seen from the present, for the first time, without understanding what 'ex gay', it's a gospel singer, at a one off event who is a bigot. Bad - yes. Dealbreaker? Each of us has to live with our consciences. The IWR is a dealbreaker for some also.

As far as I can see, not one LGBT person who now calls him Barry, will change their vote after a hundred apologies. Hillary has cred on LGBT - for those for who this is critical - they are not changing candidates.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. Barack ain't never been called a f****t

If you'll pardon the paraphrase.