So What is the Line on Anti -Gay Activists in Democratic Campaigns

[illinoisprogressive]

Because if Donnie McClurkin, is the standard, a whole lot of Black Ministers aren’t going to be acceptable as supporters.

Let’s start with where the issue probably started:

Hillary Clinton

Rev. Harold Mayberry

Or perhaps Darrell Jackson, who has admirably supported hate crimes legislation, but preaches that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, and he got a big fat contract too

The real point here is that Democrats have two constituencies that often disagree with one another. One, African-Americans, compose a socially conservative demographic who are more anti-gay than the average member of the population. The GLBT community is a strong supporter of Democrats as well, but they find that many African-American religious leaders who back Democrats have offensive ideas about gay people. That’s true.

Joe Solomonese of Human Rights Campaign said this today:

“I spoke with Sen. Barack Obama today and expressed to him our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to ‘break the curse of homosexuality,’” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese said in a statement sent out moments ago.

Lots of black preachers say such things. Does that mean none of them can be associated with a Democratic Campaign?

Obama is right on most GLBT issues other than marriage by the standards of the HRC–he was a Sponsor on the ENDA at the state level in Illinois. And he, like every other Democratic politician who courts African-Americans has lots of socially conservative black preachers backing him. Why then is he singled out for this one?

And is the solution to insist on excluding such people, or is it better for candidates to build a coalition that can then dialogue on such issues?

And why aren’t other candidates hit hard on the same issue?
http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/10/24/so-what-is-the-line-on-anti-gay-activists-in-democratic-campaigns/

[illinoisprogressive]

1. So why is Obama getting shit and the others are not. Because he is the media punching bag

And no matter how bad hillary is, she is always presented as walking on water.

[Dhalgren]

2. The same kind of choice had to be made in the fifties and sixties

regarding civil rights for African Americans. If the Party backed civil rights it would lose the southern white vote. If it backed Jim Crow democrats, it would lose the African Americans and many whites from around the country. When the choice is between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, the Party should do the right thing - and that means unequivocal support for equal rights. The alternative will cause the party to lose a lot of left/progressives in the long run. But I don't think the Party leadership cares, to be honest...

[illinoisprogressive]

3. But the double standard is amazing. Yes, the leadership doesn't care about anything but,

the press is taking sides and promoting someone who's only claim to run is nepotism.
Yet, the press chooses to dump on one candidate while ignoring the same with another.

[CTLawGuy]

4. but that's HILLARY

only OBAMA should be the subject of constant condemnation.

Teflon Hillary.