Obama On Gospel Tour With "Ex-Gay" Singer Who Crusades Against "The Curse Of Homosexuality"

[DeSwiss]

Obama to do gospel tour with radical right singer who crusades against "the curse of homosexuality"

AmericaBlog
by John Aravosis (DC)
10/20/2007 10:57:00 AM ET

From the NYT:

As religious conservatives gather in Washington this weekend for the “Values Voters Summit,” Senator Barack Obama’s campaign announced its latest effort to attract people of faith to the campaign: a gospel concert tour. All three of the dates of the “Embrace the Change” tour are in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama is locked in battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for black voters.

Gospel acts including Mary Mary, Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Byron Cage and the Mighty Clouds of Joy are scheduled to appear. “This is another example of how Barack Obama is defying conventional wisdom about how politics is done and giving new meaning to meeting people at the grassroots level,” Joshua DuBois, the campaign’s religious affairs director, said in a release.

Yes, sucking up to anti-gay bigots and joining them on stage - no, giving them a stage - is certainly defying conventional wisdom as to how a Democrat becomes president. Oh, and McClurkin also believes that gays can, and need to, be "cured."

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-to-do-gospel-tour-with-radical.html

- Its a wonder that all politicians don't look like pretzels they way they bend and twist themselves out of shape to pander to each group.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "Obama's Gospel Concert Tour"??

You have got to be fucking kidding me...
This Donnie guy sounds... well, see for yerselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_McClurkin

[DeSwiss]

3. Considering his background....

....he's one sick puppy. Still.

He's turning the trauma he endured into a campaign against gays and himself. Classic case of self-hatred of a sexually abused person. The boy needs therapy, not a tamborine....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[la la]

8. well, then--born in Amityville--

maybe he's the original 'Amityville Horror'.

( not kidding!)

[DeSwiss]

14. Yeah, I saw that....

...and it was the first thing I thought too. Oh. Well. There ya go....

He's possessed.

[varkam]

2. I really used to like Obama. I really did.

I actually jumped for joy when he declared he was entering the race. But this pandering for the religious vote is really getting on my nerves.

[DeSwiss]

4. I hear ya'....

...and I felt the same way about Nancy, at first.

I'm hoping that in the end, they're just the ice-breakers. We can certainly do better than this.

- Can't we???

[varkam]

6. Oh, I think we can.

Just not anytime soon.

[NMMNG]

9. And some question atheists' disgust at his pandering to the evangelicals

Look where it's heading. Imagine where it might go next. :scared:

[Jameson and Craic]

12. Precisely...I wouldn't trust Obama as far as I could throw him

He's certainly no liberal, despite what people pretend he is.

[NMMNG]

17. Me either

And if he dared to come to me asking for support I'd tell him to go ask his evangelical gay-bashers for it.

[zonmoy]

45. problem is that the only two liberals running in the democratic party

are kuchinic and gravel.

[DeSwiss]

13. The worst part is....

....they don't even try to pretend that there's such a thing as "separation between church and state" now. The pandering and calls for obeisance is blatantly out in the open now. The next move will be to put the voting booths right in the church next. So the pastor can be assured that you're voting for the "right" person.

I'm sick of religion in my politics. I'd rather have it plain with no salvation or blood of Jebus thank you. Is that too much to ask?

[NMMNG]

16. But when anybody complains

They call you a "fundamentalist atheist" or some other such thing and claim you're paranoid. After all, nobody is actually putting you down on your knees and forcing you to pray--are they? There's not an official, engraved in stone state religion, is there? If it's just by proxy it doesn't really count. If the water is just being heated slowly to the boiling point it's not so bad, right?

[Toasterlad]

21. My Voting Booth Actually IS in a Church

Albeit, in the day-care center that's attached to it. I get uneasy every time I go to vote, because there's a big picture of Jesus right over the voting booths, and I know he can totally see who I'm voting for. That ain't right.

[Ian David]

30. They're not allowed to display overt religious symbols near the voting booths.

You should complain about that.

[Toasterlad]

34. It's Annoying, But It's Doesn't Bother Me Enough to Complain About.

[spoony]

39. You aren't a SImpson

and as such it isn't cute, clever, or original to write "Jebus." It's just childish.

[DeSwiss]

43. Does that bother you?

Gee, I hope so!!! :D :thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

47. I Found it VERY Amusing, the Moreso Because It Annoyed You.

Jeebus, Jeebus, Jeebus!

[MNBrewer]

64. Sweetest name I know....

Fills my every longing

Keeps me singing as I go.

(I couldn't resist)

[Tyo]

48. I'm assuming that you have an invisible friend..

in the form of the magic Sky Troll and that you believe that bushes talk and that food falls from the sky and that people walk on water and also are able to turn said liquid into wine. And in the absence of any evidence whatsoever you believe that there is a happy place that people like you will go to after death and an unhappy place reserved for people like me. And you are calling others "childish"?

[ehigitb]

53. Religion is a part

Actually if you follow the history of America, constitution, and government you will see that if was founded on religion. Taxes started in BC and has been recorded in the bible. Without the bible and religion, there wouldn't be America. Every person who had a part in the making and growth of America had a religious background. Because we are moral/ethicial people, our background, religion being a part of it, will be in our thinking when we decide our leader for the next couple of years. Barack is wise he knows that a high percentage of Americans are religious and most of them are Christians. These same Christians, Catholics, etc will be voting on Nov. In addition, he knows the topics that are going through the mind of most people. Majority rules! America is a very religious country

[Rhythm]

54. Flunked elementary civics, i guess?

Majority rules!

Not really... majority only 'rules' in so far as they don't trample on the Constitutional rights of the minority.

As for the rest of that generalized claptrap, I'm not even going to bother.

[pinto]

55. As much as this meme is touted, I disagree. The US has a long history

of recognizing the established separation of church and state, while understanding the religious tenets of many Americans. It's a pretty fine dance, and I think we have done it well for most of our history. Americans may be a religious people, yet we know our government is not, and should not, be a religious institution.

JFK spoke to it bluntly, in his day -

John F. Kennedy

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.

Reprinted with permission from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library.

[racaulk]

56. So if a Dem candidate were pursuing a racist campaign, you would be OK with that too, I suppose.

Actually, if you follow the history of America, constitution, and government you will see that it was founded by white people of European ancestry. Without European conquerors...err, I mean "settlers," there wouldn't be America. Every person who had a part in the making and growth of America either (1) had European ancestry, (2) saw their lands and peoples destroyed by those of European ancestry, or (3) were brought to this land against their will by someone of European ancestry. Because white people are a moral/ethical people, our background, skin color being a part of it, will be in our thinking when we decide our leader for the next four...err, I mean "couple of" years. Any candidate would be wise to know that a high percentage of Americans are white and largely of European ancestry. These same white people will be voting in Nov. In addition, candidates know the topics that are going through the minds of most white people. Majority rules! America is a very Caucasian country

:sarcasm: <---for those that lack the intelligence to know that I'm not being serious in the paragraph above...which includes you!

Majority rules, huh? I'm sure glad you're not running our government. If we had true "majority rules" policies in this country, then slavery would never had been abolished, Jim Crow laws would still be constitutional, abortion would be illegal, women wouldn't be able to vote or serve in the military, African Americans wouldn't be able to vote or serve in the military, each person of African ancestry that was born in America would still be considered 3/5 of a person, religious people would still be trying to encode their religious bigotry into our secular laws, etc. Actually, one of those is still the case in this country, and your candidate seems to be OK with that.

History is also littered with instances where the majority in power did whatever they wanted without concern for the minority, with disastrous consequences (i.e., the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, European imperialism, the Salem witch trials, the concentration camps in Germany, etc.).

And what does the rest of your prattle of a post have to do with the fact that those religious people who founded this country established it as a secular nation? Separation of church and state, and all that jazz...

I highly recommend that you go back and take remedial classes in political science and history, and come back to us when you can contribute to any conversation on those subjects in a knowledgeable manner.

By the way, Presidents aren't elected for a "couple of years." They're elected to 4-year terms. The more you know.

:eyes:

[Chovexani]

58. Glad to see thread necromancy being practiced for a good reason

WTF?

[racaulk]

60. Haven't you heard? It's majority rules, baby!

So I guess since you and I are both non-religious and non-heterosexual, we should just STFU and enjoy the ride.

Geez! :crazy:

[racaulk]

61. Oops!

Sorry Chovexani, I should have said "non-Christian" instead of "non-religious." Too late to edit my post now... :hi:

[Irishonly]

28. I Don't

Although you may not realize it because we are mostly ignored by the MSM, there are many liberals following Jesus' teachings that support you and are just as enraged at Obama's hypocrisy. The word Christian gets stuck in my throat these days because right wing fundies have prostituted its meaning.

Before I started coming to this board I thought I had a good understanding of gays. My sil is gay. My daughter grew up with the knowledge her aunt was gay and it was no big deal. I had no idea how bad it was. I have learned from everyone posting here.

[NMMNG]

29. It's shameful

the way that liberal Christians are virtually invisible because the RRR is so vocal and visible. They make sure that the MSM pays attention to them and that their message is out there. Accordingly it seems like they are the "voice of Christianity" and many respond in kind .

What truly amazes me is the way the RRR both demands and accepts the laws that protect them from religious persecution/discrimination while denouncing and working to prevent those that would protect GLBT people from persecution/discrimination. They insist it is their religious right to persecute and discriminate against us, yet nobody has a right of any kind to discriminate against them. The doublethink that goes into that is simply mind-boggling.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

19. Mine,too.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoFerret]

62. Beyond the pale. Born-again. Again

.

[Sandaasu]

5. Well, there goes my support for Obama

And he's not getting it back without an apology for this slap in the face.

[Imagine My Surprise]

7. Those of us who saw such pandering in him from day one --

aren't going to say I told you so.

[Sandaasu]

10. There's a difference, really

Someone can speak of faith and things involving it without involving those that have specific messages like the one Donnie brings to the table.

[Jameson and Craic]

11. Exactly!

I'm not sure why Obama is so popular among progressives, when he so clearly panders to the Fundie contingent.

[DeSwiss]

15. I was never convinced.... n/t

[msongs]

18. "we must embrace christ".... nt

[DeSwiss]

20. We must?

I don't think so.

- But that's me.

[MNBrewer]

65. That sounds dangerous

I mean, first it's a hug, then it's a longer hug, then there's some making out.....

Before long, well, who KNOWS what might happen.

Just say no to embracing Christ.

[terrya]

22. I'll just erase everything I heard Obama say at the GLBT Presidential Forum

A few weeks ago. When he was talking about how committed he was to GLBT equality.

Because he sure as hell can't really mean it when he consorts with hatemongers like this guy.

[DeSwiss]

23. Apparently Obama, or whom ever is making.....

...the campaign decisions, are prepared to write-off the GLBT and GLBT-supporter's votes. The only other answer is that he's just plain stupid. And we don't need another one of those in the WH....

[terrya]

24. Well, if that's true....

I don't know what to say. It's bad enough that the 3 major candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) don't support same-sex marriage equality. But, dammit, to be thrown under the bus (as Melissa Etheridge so memorably put it at the GLBT forum) like this...shameful. Just shameful.

[MNBrewer]

66. "equality"

Equal, but separate

[Siyahamba]

25. Obama's own denomination supports marriage equality

I don't understand his "marriage has religious connotations" position. If that truly is the case, then going by the United Church of Christ - shouldn't that mean marriage equality?

[DeSwiss]

26. Being a politician today....

...is more about focus groups, polling and devising statements that (1) garner plausible deniability, (2) provide the greatest number of interpretations, and/or (3) state a position without actually committing yourself to doing anything about it.

Since almost all of the front-runners are doing this, we are left with paring away at the facades until we reach the lowest common denominator. They're betting when we do, it'll be them.

And if they're right and win it all, they haven't really promised to do anything....

[Amimnoch]

27. Or, how about government getting out of it all together?

The whole marriage issue ticks me off..

It apparently isn't "religious enough" to keep government out of it. To keep the government from giving tax breaks to married people. To keep the government giving out various legally protected status when it comes to property or succession rights of those married, of social security benefits, of medical decision making, of retirement rights given to spouses. The government gave marriage a huge amount of legal benefits, and rights for spouses, yet sits back and determines who can/can't get married in the first place?

When they talk about "defending" marriage, it is because it is a "religious institution", yet, last I checked, from the very conception of our government, they aren't even supposed to get in the business in the first place.

How about this one, instead of giving gay people the "right" to get married in the first place, how about leaving "religion" out of the government, and leave "marriage" strictly to religious institutions (since it has so many "religious connotations"), and make everyone, including heteros have to become "domestic partnerships", and give us our RIGHTS at the same time under the same bill?

Should make all but the most atrocious fundamentalist religious wacko's happy.

[dbackjon]

31. this Hurts

Obama is telling all GLBT's to FUCK OFF.

Well - fuck you too, ASSHOLE.

[galledgoblin]

32. *forehead slap*

of the three main candidates, he still has my support... his books indicate a typically liberalish Christian upbringing, and from that and the rest of his experience he manages to nail every other problem; but he stumbles with gay rights, still hampered by the prejudices of the past.

it's a class issue. the gay and lesbian movement is still seen by some as a rich white fight for "special rights".

I'll email the campaign on this. they may have had no idea.

[galledgoblin]

33. gospel singers who support gay rights?

it's too little too late to try this without clearly pandering to LGBTs, but what if the campaign added a gospel singer/group who openly supports gay rights to share the stage with McClurkin?

...um... are there any gospel singers who support gay rights? I'm afraid I mainly listen to nerdy punk...

it's still a far cry from Gore inviting the Phelps clan to the inaugural balls in 1992 and 1996.

[Ian David]

35. Dolly Parton? n/t

[mitchtv]

36. I didn't trust him before

now, even less. Wrong on nuclear energy, weak on Social Security, now, untrustworthy for Gays

[DeSwiss]

37. I saw this post....

....over at http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CD8419C572FC7E4000D08EDA0829FAED?diaryId=3365">Pam's Houseblend on this same article. The poster really cuts to the chase concerning McClurkin's considering himself "ex-gay" and his opinions about homosexuality in general:

by: Regan DuCasse @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 19:05:49 PM CDT

"I've given over that question before to ex gays...who are you really and who for? Because I've been straight all my life, and personally why does being heterosexual require a medal for you, and not for me?

Because it's for real, no thing of accomplishment, but state of being one has no control over. I know why someone wouldn't WANT to be gay...but apparently, questioning why it matters so much to people who aren't makes no sense.

And straight people lecturing as IF they know more about what being gay is than an actual gay person is TRULY stupid.

Donnie, even if you were a light skinned black, you'd still be black. And you being a gay man not getting any, still makes you gay.

Just calling them like I see em, people. And showing off one's acquired heterosexuality is like a woman who got implants showing them off as if they were hers genetically."

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do;jsessionid=CD8419C572FC7E4000D08EDA0829FAED?commentId=37661">Link

Another good thread on this article I found over at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/20/123237/35">KOS. There's also a poll there that presently has a 54% - 46% split in favor of Obama going forward with the tour with McClurkin. And it occurred to me that the only way Obama might salvage this, is if during his "tour" he makes it clear that he doesn't accept McClurkin's views about being gay.

McClurkin defines homosexuals as "liars," who've made a choice in their lifestyles. And which of course, can only be cured by the love of Jesus. Which would also mean that he's saying if you're a gay Hindu or Muslim, you're out of luck in getting yourself "cured" unless you're prepared to convert from your religion to his. Which makes him a religious bigot as well as a self-hating homophobe. I'm just glad that I don't live in his head.

But if Obama takes the opportunity to use this as a means to counter that message, it would show him engaging and denouncing the issue of attacking gays and their fight for full equality -- directly. It would also cause no small amount of distress and anguish among a number of homophobic black ministers who are making a good living selling books, and selling their hate-filled messages in their own "tours." Where they denounce the very people that their savior told them to love as themselves. And not judge them.

It could work. But I doubt that's what this is about. Its probably just what it looks like....

[lightningandsnow]

40. A fine example of why I actually hate politics

I am sick of people pandering and sukcing up to stupid people. Stupid hateful people, that is.

[DeSwiss]

41. I find myself in the same boat....

....where sometimes I don't even want to know what's happening in politics, because its all the same. I guess I keep coming back to see if anything's changed. When there is a change from the usual BS, its mostly around the edges.

Here's an idea. How bout a candidate saying: "I will uphold the Constitution of the United States. And will to the best of my ability insure that the laws of this country apply equally to all its people. And anyone who disagrees with this and doesn't believe in equality like I do, shouldn't vote for me."

I'd actually volunteer for someone who said that.....

[NorthCarolina]

42. I will never understand

why any self respecting LGBT person would ever consider casting a vote for ANY of the "media" front runners. Kucinich has it together and he supports the LGBT community FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS, not simply spewing vague positions in order to remain politically "safe" (ie pandering).

I say if you want change, "real" change, then support those candidates who OPENLY and COURAGEOUSLY support you. Seems like common sense to me.

[DeSwiss]

44. I agree....

...for me now its between Kucinich and Dodd. Dodd's pulling ahead for me though, with his recent announcement that as President he'd seek to de-criminalize marijuana. :D

[NorthCarolina]

46. Come back to Kucinich then

because he has advocated the legalization of marijuana since the onset of his campaign. Kucinich believes that it is necessary to de-criminalize marijuana in order to free up law enforcement resources for actually fighting crime, plus to eliminate overcrowding in our jails and prisons. He also seeks to make the penalties for possession of cocaine and "crack" cocaine the same as currently, "crack" offenses carry a heavier penalty and therefore the poor are subject to harsher treatment under the law than elite cocaine heads.

[mondo joe]

57. Really? You'll never understand it?

A candidate who openly supports you but won't be elected and can't get legislation passed is useless.

Of the candidates who stand a chance of winning, some are preferable to others.

[Lisaben2619]

49. Help me to understand this...

You support a Party with energy and money that repeatedly stabs LGBT folks in the back, with words and deeds. You also support presidential candidates like Edwards, Clinton, Obama, et. al. who doesn't support marriage equality and then are somehow SHOCKED when one of them cavorts with a self-loathing gay man who perpetrates violence against the LGBT community. Thinking that gay people aren't good enough for marriage is bigotry. Obama has already said that he doesn't support equality for LGBT people. Where does the surprise come from? My amazement is that my LGBT community continues to "go back" to abusive candidates who beat us and then act all shocked when we're beaten again.

[galledgoblin]

50. response from the campaign to the comments I sent

I'm afraid I do not have a copy of the email I sent, but it was along the lines of "wtf dude"
I'm still hurt, but slowly coming back around to the fervent support I held for Obama previously. the campaign from the start has been about uniting America for the crises the 21st century is already ripe with. if all demographics are a bit upset, we're on the right track.
-------------

Dear Friend,

Thank you for sharing your strong objections to past statements of one of the performers on the recent South Carolina gospel tour. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns directly because I strongly disagree with Pastor McClurkin’s deeply hurtful and offensive statements about sexual orientation.

I have always clearly stated my belief that members of the LGBT community are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently supported gay rights throughout my career, and I will continue to work for an open, tolerant society where people of all sexual orientations are protected and their contributions are valued.

To honor my commitment to promoting tolerance on the gospel tour, I asked Rev. Andy Sidden, an openly gay South Carolina pastor, to open the tour and offer a prayer. I’m glad he joined us, because we have to speak to people we disagree with in order to confront issues that are important to gay and black communities, like the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I have spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of the Black community, and I will continue to be outspoken on this issue.

More broadly, we need to create a productive dialogue between people of opposing views, and I had a good conversation about this with Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign. After our conversation, Mr. Solmonese issued a statement that said, in part:

“I did thank …. for his willingness to call on religious leaders to open a dialogue about homophobia. We hope that Sen. Obama will move forward and facilitate face-to-face meetings with religious leaders, like Rev. McClurkin, and the GLBT community to confront the issue of homophobia.”

“We also call on all of the presidential campaigns to look within their ranks of supporters and make the same commitment to engage in a dialogue among differing views around issues of equality and fairness for our community.”

A group of LGBT and religious leaders have also embraced this opportunity to open a dialogue, and you can find an open letter from them below. I’ve said before that America’s diversity is its greatest strength. In order to confront the challenges of our day, we must be able to get past the divisions which have upheld our progress in the past. I am committed to building those bridges to a better future.

Thank you again for contacting me and sharing your concerns.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

---------------------
October 24, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

As representatives of Barack Obama supporters from the African American religious community and the gay community, we are issuing a statement together for the first time. Our letter addresses the recent issue of Pastor Donnie McClurkin singing at Senator Obama’s “Embrace the Change” concert series. In the midst of division, we hope and believe that this is a moment to bring together communities that have been divided for far too long.

A few things are clear.

First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.

Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.

Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together.

It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama.

At the same time, while Obama has said that he "strongly disagrees" with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

We also ask Senator Obama’s critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?

We stand with Senator Obama. We stand with him because of the solutions he is proposing for our nation. We stand with him because of his character and his judgment. But the most important reason we stand with him is because today, as he has done all along, Barack Obama is causing us to stand together.

That's the kind of President we need, and we are proud to support him.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, Jr.
Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Chair, Obama National African American Religious Leaders Working Group
Cleveland, Ohio

Stampp Corbin
Chair, Obama National LGBT Leadership Council
Former Member of Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors
Columbus, Ohio

Tobias Barrington Wolff
Chair, Obama LGBT Policy Committee
Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Philadelphia, PA

The Reverend Stephen John Thurston
President
National Baptist Convention of America
Chicago, IL

The Reverend Alvin Love
President
Baptist General State Convention of Illinois, Inc.

Bishop E. Earl McCloud, Jr.
Office of Ecumenical & Urban Affairs
African Methodist Episcopal Church
Atlanta, GA

Steven Latasa-Nicks
President, The Phelon Group, Inc.
Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Governors
New York, NY

Maxim Thorne
Former COO, Human Rights Campaign
Paterson, NJ

Phil Burgess
Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors
Chicago, IL

Rev. Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner
Skinner Leadership Institute
Tracy’s Landing, MD

Rev. Michael Pfleger
St. Sabina, Chicago

Rev. Edward Taylor
San Jose, CA

The Reverend Robert H. Thompson
Exeter, NH

Sharon Malheiro
LGBT Activist
Des Moines, IA

Hon. Jon Cooper
Majority Leader, Suffolk County (NY) Legislature

Rev. Paul Hobson Sadler, Sr., Pastor
Mt. Zion Congregational UCC


-------------
Paid for by Obama for America

[xchrom]

59. imagine how DU would burn -- continuously --

if a republick party candidate had done this?

NObama

[MNBrewer]

63. Neither of the two remaining

Neither of the two remaining candidates are exactly wonderful on gay rights issues. Both are against marriage equality for homosexuals. Obama is marginally better on DOMA repeal (i.e., repeal the whole law, vs. Hillary's repeal of only a single section).

[Creideiki]

67. And Hillary's better at everything else--including thinking of us like we're human beings

Not to mention that Barack really doesn't have a great track record on DOMA. Illinois still has its.

[MNBrewer]

68. I don't really think that's so true.

Neither Obama or Hillary is for full equality, clearly. I imagine they both wish that gays would just go away and leave them alone.

However, Hillary's lack of judgement in voting to give Bush the green light for the Iraq war makes ranks her below Obama in my opinion.

[gaspee]

69. That's bullshit

Clinton has a long history of being pro gay rights - even back when it was even less popular to do so.

Stick your Clinton's the same as Obama on gay rights meme where the sun don't shine.

I, personally, think Obama has a real problem with gay people. YMMV

[MNBrewer]

70. Is she, or is she not

Is she, or is she not for full equality? No, she's not. Neither is Obama.

On what issues do they differ regarding gay rights, other than Hillary wanting to repeal only one section of DOMA vs Obama wanting to repeal the whole thing (not that either is in favor of marriage equality for us).

Please, name ONE. Just ONE.