Thursday, December 20, 2007

Action and Tangible Commitment, Not Political Correctness

A reader writes that Obama's inclusion of rabidly anti-gay ex-gay Donnie McClurkin on a gospel tour disqualifies him as credible on DOMA repeal. I was hoping someone would bring up the McClurkin thing, as it's an old controversy and I have been thinking about it.

I would rather support a candidate who will bring about real, beneficial change even if he or she hangs out with people I don't like or agree with. Hillary is very politically correct, goes to the right dinners, hangs with the right crowd and obviously has won the well, support I guess (you can't call it affection) of a great deal of the establishment, including the gay establishment (read: HRC). So she may not have ruffled any gay feathers but she won't stick her own neck out either on behalf of the gay community.

Obama has and is -- by telling the black religious establishment that they are wrong about their homophobia.

Obama is not perfect and he has flaws like any other candidate or human being. I'm not nominating him for saint (I happen not to believe in them). But I am considering giving him my vote (I still have until Feb. to make up my mind).

Here's Obama in his own words defending his record on gay issues as well as stating plainly that he will legalize federal marriage benefits for gay couples in civil unions. I cannot imagine Hillary being so direct.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actions speak louder than words for me. And given that Obama has already broken one promise to me (that I know about), I'm disinclined to give him the benefit of any doubt on the McClurkin thing.

Scott said...

"Benefit of any doubt on the McClurkin thing"

What does that mean, exactly? You think he secretly agrees with Donnie McClurkin that you can become ex-gay and that homosexuality is a vile disease? And that when he goes to African-American ministers and tells them just the opposite, thus risking their support that he very much needs, that he was lying?

Look, at the time it raised my eyebrows too. But when you step back and ask what did it really mean, the answer is not all that much, given Obama's other, more relevant words and actions on gay issues.

I don't like he shared the stage with McClurkin any more than you do...but in the end, that matters less than the policies he's willing to support and fight for.

Looking at the policies he's willing to support, he is the most pro-gay candidate -- with any shot of winning -- in the race.

Anonymous said...

I'm not honestly sure what he thinks about you and me and our desire to be able to live openly and securely in society, enjoying exactly the same rights and privileges as any other citizen, irrespective of the fact that we both have and like dicks. I would like to believe what he says about gay rights.

But I can't take his words at face value when his actions call them into question. If you're really a champion of LGBT rights, you don't give any kind of support to a git like McClurkin. And when someone on your campaign staff signs him up for one of your campaign events, you uninvite him, discipline the responsible staffer(s) or take other remedial measures, apologize, and try to win back everybody you just scared out of your camp. Obama did none of that.

Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Obama ever gone to any ministers and told them they're wrong to demonize LGBT folk. He certainly didn't at that South Carolina gig--he didn't even show up. Just had a white gay minister come and lecture the black crowd for a couple of minutes before McClurkin got up there and shook his ex-gay, gay-hatin' booty for two or three solid hours. That's an incredibly stupid move in a racially charged atmosphere, and one I wouldn't have thought Obama was dumb enough to make--and, again, once he'd realized what he'd done, he should have un-done it immediately. He didn't.

Throughout the whole flap he never once apologized to LGBT people, never seemed to think that our concerns were serious, and seemed downright surprised that we'd get upset over a little thing like inviting a guy who thinks we're evil and want to molest little kids appear on his behalf.

So I'm a lot less willing to look to the policies he says he's willing to support--because the way he acts seems to me to indicate that his support for gay rights is proportional to the amount of heat he expects to take for being a gay-rights supporter. If that is in fact the case, then how is he any better than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or any of the other Democrats in the field?

Scott said...

It's not the case. He spoke to a gathering of African-American ministers in Tennessee earlier this year. He continues to talk about gays to conservative black audiences when he doesn't have to. Here is an eyewitness, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Yesterday, I went to see Barack Obama speak at North Carolina Central University, a "Historically Black College" in Durham, North Carolina. The vast majority of the crowd was black. In his riffing on what groups we cannot allow to be scapegoated in the next election, Barack built to and concluded with "homosexuals" ... to the conspicuous (and regrettable) silence of the crowd.

It wasn't the "right" thing to say politically, but it was the right thing to say. The national media certainly wouldn't have reported on it had he left homosexuality out of this particular speech. All he accomplished, by sticking to his principles, was run the risk of alienating people whose support he desperately needs. Though, in fairness, this did cement my support.

Andrew, this man is a strong ally. Anyone for whom sexuality issues are important would be making a grievous error to jump his ship over the Donnie McClurkin fiasco.

And here's what he told the black ministers in TN:

I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract. I specifically pointed out that if there’s any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then we –you should tell me, because I haven’t seen any evidence of it. .

And what I’ve also said — and what I’ve also said is, if you think that issue is more important to the black family, which is under siege — if you think that’s more important than the fact that black men don’t have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you.

…And the black community, I think, has a diversity of opinion, as you and I both know. There are people who recognize that if we’re going to talk about justice and civil rights and fairness, that should apply to all people, not just some. And there are some folks who, coming out of the church, have, you know, elevated one line in Romans above the Sermon in the Mount.

Anonymous said...

Then how do you explain the McClurkin thing? If he's that committed to gay rights, he should've dropped him from the program as soon as he found out about the man's anti-gay views. Certainly as soon as he started getting feedback from the gay community.

Yet he didn't.

It's one thing to stand up and make pretty speeches when there are relatively few consequences. (And a "regrettable silence" doesn't rank terribly high on my list in that department.) It's another thing entirely to stand up and be counted when it matters. Obama has yet to show me that he can do that when it comes to gay rights.

Nor is his McClurkin flap, as important as that is, the only point of disagreement I have with Obama. Sorry, Scott, but this is one queer you're not going to be able to convert on this one.