Who/what has done more to harm gay rights?

[CTLawGuy]

Poll question: Who/what has done more to harm gay rights?

DOMA - the defense of marriage act?

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. Get married in Mass., and NO OTHER STATE has to recognize it.

The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. means NO federal benefits AT ALL, even for gay married couples from Mass. No law that any state could make could EVER make gay couples equal.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate<1> and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives<2>, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA.

(the text in bold is my commentary).


*********************************************************************************************************************************

OR Donnie McClurkin?
--------------------------------------------------------
Donnie McClurkin (born November 9, 1959) is a Grammy Award winning American gospel singer and minister.
\Early years
McClurkin was born and raised in Amityville, New York. McClurkin found comfort through an aunt who sang background vocals with gospel music musician Andraé Crouch. After staying close to Crouch throughout his boyhood, he began to play piano and sing with his church youth choir. He formed the McClurkin Singers by the time he was a teenager, and later formed another group, the New York Restoration Choir.

Hired as an associate minister at Marvin Winans' Perfecting Church in 1989, with his vocals during a seminar, McClurkin endured a bout with leukemia that year.<1>

...

Controversy about views on homosexuality
Although he lived for several years as a gay man, McClurkin states that he is now ex-gay.<6> In his book Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor McClurkin wrote that homosexuality is a spiritual issue and thus one can be "delivered" from it by God;

"The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."<7>

He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man". McClurkin has stated that homosexuality is a curse<4> and that gays "are trying to kill our children."<8>

Political involvement
McClurkin's listing as a headlining performer for Senator Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign has stirred controversy because of his views on homosexuality.<9><10[br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_McClurkin

(bold is my highlighting, text is Wikipedia's)

[closeupready]

1. This is silly.

Neither the DOMA nor McClurkin are running for president.

On edit, oh, okay, I think I see where you're going with this. Then I would say definitely the DOMA, but messages like those preach by the McClurkins out there have helped to keep gays in the closet so I'm not sure there's a single answer.

[JI7]

2. neither is Oprah

[closeupready]

4. Oh, I see, was that some sort of dichotomy she brought up?

Throwing in a little eye roll? I could see her doing that.

[CTLawGuy]

6. not silly at all

The Clintons have DOMA - Hillary has supported it before (now she has wavered on it) (Bill signed it)
and Obama has Donnie McClurkin.

What should the gay community be more upset about? A gospel singer with disturbing views, or the ONE law that prevents any state from making gay couples truly equal?

[closeupready]

8. Honestly, I'm more disturbed about McClurkin because

Obama should have known about his views, but went ahead with it anyway.

Hillary was not president at the time of DOMA, so she gets a pass from me from the standpoint that her opinions on DOMA impacted no one, whereas Bill actually signing it DID. If she had been in the Senate at the time and had voted in favor, that would be different.

[Skip Intro]

3. I'm really sorry. I agree with you, but can we please call "gay rights" "equal rights" - ?

[cboy4]

5. Could you explain why you're asking this question?

To me, it's the equivalent of asking whether I prefer to be stabbed or shot.

[CTLawGuy]

7. I'm putting the Donnie McClurkin non-issue in perspective

NT

[cboy4]

9. Obama aside, to you really not think McClurkin is a poison

to the battle for gay equal rights?

How can you characterize McClurkin as a non-issue?

[CTLawGuy]

11. it's a non-issue in terms of determining Obama's stance on gay rights

Obama is very pro gay rights and he used McClurkin because he is popular in SC, but McClurkin's presence at the concert didn't demonstrate to me that Obama will be any less pro-gay rights than he has always been. Others may disagree.

[cboy4]

16. Oh, so Obama's sense of decency and principle

is based on politics? On what is popular in a certain state or location?

My second question is why should I not be worried that Obama would sacrifice a piece of gay equal rights legislation (Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc.) in exchange for a compromise on something else he really wants if he needs the votes?

I'm supposed to trust Obama? I don't get it.

[CTLawGuy]

18. I don't think you should be any more worried than for any other candidate

Obama had McClurkin there simply because he is popular with a key SC demographic. Was it right? No. Would I have done it? No. Does that make Obama a homophobe? No. Does it mean he is going to set back the cause of gay rights while in office? Probably not.

[dbackjon]

33. Yes, it makes him a bigoted homophobe.

Why didn't he trot him out in California? Is he going to trot out the KKK to get the redneck vote as well?

[CTLawGuy]

35. becuase CA is not stuck in 19th century

and the KKK don't sing...

[dbackjon]

40. So Obama is just pandering to the lowest common Denomator?

And Obama could use Prussian Blue....

[CTLawGuy]

52. Yes

that's the sad truth. It proves Obama is not perfect, that he can be political too. But that's it. That's ALL it proves.

[Kucinich4America]

84. No, they just put their kids on stage to sing for them

Seriously, just vote for Dennis. Support equal rights, doesn't support closeted gospel singers. Problem solved. :)

[Progress And Change]

19. nixon was pro-civil rights but still used racism to win votes in 1968

I don't buy the idea that Obama's record absolves his pandering to bigots.

[JackBeck]

26. Since McClurkin is popular in SC

Would you recommend him headlining other Democratic Presidential candidates?

Furthermore, would you support a Democratic Presidential candidate that supported George Wallace's views?

[CTLawGuy]

28. I wouldn't personally touch him with a 10 foot pole

and what does George Wallace do besides be an idiot? Donnie McClurkin at least sings and people in SC like his music.

I personally don't understand why a state with a large homophobic population is an early primary state but that's just me.

[JackBeck]

78. Yet you said it's a non issue in determining a candidate's stance on civil rights.

George Wallace took a stand as well.

Obama should have taken a stand to denounce McClurkin, yet he didn't. He's a runaway and chosen not addressed it head on. Obama should know better since we share the equal rights struggle.

[CTLawGuy]

92. well he did say he disagreed wholeheartedly with McClurkin's stance

but I will agree it was WRONG for him to use McClurkin. It showed that he was playing politics. He made a mistake and handled it badly. I don't think (and you may disagree) that it is an indication of Obama's stance on gay rights. My opinion is he was drawn by the man's popularity as a singer and failed to consider the effect of having him on the gay community.

Obama is not perfect, and this is merely one instance of that imperfection.

[readmoreoften]

96. That may be...but I doubt it.

I believe it was a calculated move (and using the other three anti-gay singers) to secure the anti-gay vote religious vote in the very important state of South Carolina. He did not apologize. He brought in a white preacher (when there were plenty of gay AA preachers he could've brought in) and the guy was only allowed to speak at the opening when people were still arriving. McClurkin got 30 minutes to tirade. It seems to me that Obama is trying to tap into the wedge that Karl Rove designed when he created masses of anti-gay newspaper inserts in that targeted Black communities. While the Black community has always had conservative religious elements, Rove whipped them up into a frenzy and Obama tried to pour a little gasoline on the situtation to fuel his campaign--knowing that he could probably fall back on his voting record as a "who me?"

And it worked. His popularity has spiked in South Carolina since this act of political manipulation.

[CTLawGuy]

97. That may be true too

but I hope not.

Look, I realize now that in some of my posts I have not been sensitive to the pain that LGBT people feel from people like Donnie McClurkin. And for that I am sorry. If Donnie's appearance knocks Obama out of your consideration, I understand.

As a straight man I forget the emotion that comes from something like this, because I don't experience the discrimination that LGBT people feel.

I hope there are no hard feelings. May the best candidate for ALL of us win.

:pals:

[readmoreoften]

102. Thanks for trying to understand. You might be interested in doing some research into

the RNC's creation of anti-gay materials distributed to African-Americans during 2004. The newspaper inserts looked like "Parade Magazine". The GOP goal was to pull Black voters to the right by saying that LGBT people were defaming and minimizing the legacy of Civil Rights. Latent "churchy" homophobia started to become full-blown opposition.

In light of this it is crucial that our nominees counteract this by helping bring the communities together: particularly where they overlap. The percentage of black LGBT people is no different than white LGBT people and hate crimes against black gays are prevalent. (Rashawn Brazill's beheading in NYC is a particularly brutal example.) We cannot afford having a politician supporting someone who says to thousands of socially conservative people: gays kill children. It is dangerous business.

It's also dangerous for our party. If Barack Obama wants to unite folks, forcing oppressed groups to tolerate hatred is not a great strategy.

:thumbsup:

[cuke]

13. This whole thread was started just to give cover to Obama

for pandering to homophobes. It has nothing to do with the OP's concern for equal rights

[CTLawGuy]

17. No

perspective. It's meant to give perspective.

Is it worth it to attribute all this power to one idiot such that we must obsess over him? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't? I wanted people to think about that.

[Progress And Change]

21. the perspective is that it showed obama puts politics ahead of GLBT rights

That is what Obama supporters are ignoring.

[CTLawGuy]

24. that's what I think is true

He is/was banking a lot on SC. He didn't think it would be a big deal and it blew up in his face with some people. It was a mistake. But I don't think it would affect his performance in office.

It represents a show of disrespect to LGBT community, rather than a hostility to what they believe.

[Progress And Change]

37. Even Reagan wasn't personally hostile to minorities but he used race to win votes

No one is calling Obama himself a bigot. That doesn't matter. He has shown that he places politics over GLBT rights. That does not bode well for an Obama presidency. What do you think he would do if 70% of people wanted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? We would all say he would oppose it but in light of McCulkrin I don't think anyone can honestly say they are sure Obama would stand firm against such pressure.

[CTLawGuy]

44. Remember Obama has also scolded the black community about homophobia

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2169

Obama addresses black homophobia and HIV/AIDS at presidential forum
by: pam
Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:15:00 AM EDT


At last night's presidential forum, many issues were touched upon that deserved the spotlight, including reform of the criminal justice system and educational opportunities and the achievement gap, but one small statement by Barack Obama broke ground in the debates.

On a question about the scourge of HIV/AIDS and its disproportionate impact on young black people -- black teens represent 17% of the population by make up 69% of teenagers diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, Barack Obama took on the issue of homophobia in the black community.

He brought it out of the closet in front of the mostly black audience there at Howard and for those watching at home.

(")One of the things we've got to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities. We don't talk about this. We don't talk about it in schools. Sometimes we don't talk about it in churches. It has been an aspect sometimes of our homophobia that we don't address this issue as clearly as it needs to be. (")

...

Was Obama motivated by politics in bringing out McClurkin, sure. But he didn't use McClurkin primarily to communicate a stance on homosexuality, but because of the man's singing talent.

[Progress And Change]

49. Reagan also publicly denounced racism. So did Nixon. So did Bush

The game is played two ways. They give wink-and-nod signals to bigots while saying all the right things through their mouths so they don't lose the non-bigot vote. It isn't as if Reagan ever went to the South and said "I hate blacks. I'll put them at the back of the bus!" and then preached tolerance in the rest of the country.

[Kucinich4America]

86. Reagan believed that AIDS was "punishment from God"

And thus, refused to do anything about it, until one of his own staffers (and a closet homosexual himself) Terry Dolan died from AIDS.

You don't call that personally hostile?

[dbackjon]

36. I find you frankly revolting. Your lack of concern for equal rights for all Americans

is sickening.

[CTLawGuy]

46. I find your insults revolting

you don't know anything about me.

I have a different opinion on the significance of some idiot singing a song, and now I'm a bigot???

Do you have any evidence at all that Obama agrees with McClurkin in ANY way?

[Progress And Change]

57. what obama thinks about glbt is not in question

As I have pointed out, the most famous practitioners of the "Southern strategy" often did not personally hate blacks. Nixon even had a great record on civil rights. That did not prevent them from using hate for political gain.

As to Obama's beliefs, who cares? He has shown he puts politics first when it comes to GLBT people. That means that even in the unlikely event that he personally is prejudiced (I am not going to play the bs game in which people assume a politician they like cannot be a bigot. As if we know what they say when the cameras are off...) he won't sell GLBT down the river because that would hurt him politically. That also means he will not go the extra mile for GLBT people.

[cboy4]

27. lol. Yea, I know. I was just testing to see how honest

the OP was intending to be with my interrogation.

[dbackjon]

31. Only to bigots like you is the McClurkin bigotry a non-issue.

To the rest of us, it is.

Shows how poor judgement/character Obama has.

[CTLawGuy]

34. lame

personal insults.

That's classy.

[dbackjon]

39. No - what is lame is people like you putting threads like this up

It IS personally insulting to me.

[CTLawGuy]

47. well I'm sorry you are so insulted

If Donnie McClurkin is so powerful to you, there's nothing I can do about it.

What's powerful to me is actual legislation, actual law, that stands in the way of true equality.

[NMMNG]

58. Actual legislation, actual law, that stands in the way of true equality

That's spurred on by people like McClurkin. People like him who preach about the evils of homosexuality, and how GLBT people shouldn't be allowed to have equal rights, or even be allowed to exist. Next thing you know those whose minds have been warped by his preaching run to the voting booths and either vote for laws that restrict the rights of LGBT people, or for politicians who implement such laws. And don't even get me started on the hate crimes people like McClurkin can incite. People like McClurkin are dangerous.

[CTLawGuy]

65. that's a very good point

so why did the Clinton do the bidding of people like him? and why is there no similar outrage over that?

[NMMNG]

76. That's been explained ad nauseum

When did Clinton turn over a microphone to a rabid homophobe and let him loose in front of an audience of many thousands to give a sermon against gay people? The answer? Never.

Yes, Clinton has prayer circles in which homophobes are present. Yes, she has a homophobe on her staff. Yes, those are both bad things. (And I don't support her, BTW.) But she never has given any of them a microphone and allowed them to give an anti-gay sermon to thousands of people--particularly after being asked not to by LGBT people.


What Clinton did was bad, but not near as bad as what Obama did. She's still not getting my support, though I'd give it to her long before I'd give it to Obama, who decided to crap all over us to get votes.

[CTLawGuy]

90. and that's fine

I have my opinions and you have yours. Both are legitimate. I hope we can come together after the primaries are over.

[dbackjon]

68. Very well put!

[cboy4]

81. Yes, of course. It's a no-brainer.

:thumbsup:

[NMMNG]

42. I'm glad you consider people shitting on GLBTs a non-issue

Thank you for your support.

[rinsd]

117. Calling it a non issue is part of the problem in the first place.

[cloudythescribbler]

141. I agree w/Darboy on McLurkin, but this was a snarky way to make the point

And that snarkiness, in turn, can offend some people a lot.

Cleverly constructed bait though

[PurityOfEssence]

10. The Donnie McClurkin affair was a rabble-rousing, race-baiting, bible-thumping bit of bigotry.

Worse things have happened. So what?

Obama used race and religion to try to carve off a huge bloc of voters in South Carolina away from Clinton. In the process, he tacitly played up to the homophobia that is rife in that milieu. When confronted about having an open homophobe on the tour, Obama Clintoned out and added a gay preacher to the show but wouldn't cancel dear Donnie. Attempting to minimize the outrage by repeatedly claiming that McClurkin was merely one of many on the bill, he tried to keep opponents at bay.

Comes the big show, and we find out that McClurkin is the MC of the evening, does a half-hour pusillanimous god-based anti-gay screed for the faithful as the show-stopper, and rings out the event. Then we find that the token gay was on quickly at the top of the show, and was white, even though at least two black gay preachers had been recommended and could have done it. The campaign has stiff-armed and poo-pooed the whole thing ever since, since they "got what they wanted".

This was ugly on so many levels, but it was just plain stupid. That he hasn't really been taken to task for this in the open press in a way that has stuck is just horrendous. Those who apologize for this should be ashamed of themselves, and there have been far too few of his supporters who have the character to rebuke him for it. There have been some, and that is admirable.

The sheer hucksterism and snake-oil opportunism was just revolting, and it bears repeating.

That is why it's being repeated. That's why it will continue to be repeated. It ain't right. He and others can hide behind their great big sky-chief as much as they want, but those who don't see the seriousness of this or somehow feel entitled to continue blatant bigotry-for-profit need more than a supernatural being, they need a moral compass.

Perhaps this is why so many people feel there's a need of the threat of damnation to keep people in line: those who would blithely tolerate this are not moral people, and perhaps the only way to get them to toe the line and be decent citizens is with the thunderous fear of hellfire.

This was a sickening and shameful episode, and it lingers with the sour taste of slapdash expediency. I had thought that this would be a flame-out of Muskie-tear or Hart-chick proportions, but I was wrong; far too many people are perfectly fine with oppressing people, as long as they're not on the list.

[Maven]

106. I'm bookmarking this thread

for your terrific post.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Bill Clinton has done the most harm to LGBTs

Bill Clinton's DOMA and the witchhunts that are "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have done the most harm to LGBTs, and to the national security of our nation (gay Arabic linguists that were mustered out of the military under DADT).

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Neither's had much, if any, effect

DOMA has never affected a single person.

McClurkin has, perhaps, affected a handful.

[CTLawGuy]

15. each married gay couple in Mass

has been affected by DOMA. It prevents them from recognition by other states and from receiving ANY federal benefits of marriage.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. OK

on the federal benefits, but DOMA doesn't forbid other states from recognizing those marriages. It just doesn't force them to. It's a shitty law, and probably unconstitutional.

[cuke]

29. Which is why DOMA hasn't had much effect

It hasn't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet, and it will be.

[cboy4]

41. Yea, but there's a difference between much effect and

no effect.

I always love watching people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about flip flop.

It's terrific entertainment.

[cuke]

45. I agree there

And for the record, Clinton is on record as wanting to remove the sections of DOMA that prohibits Federal recognition and benefits

[cboy4]

50. Well she certainly didn't drag her campaign into the gutter

and embrace a notorious homophobe for cheap politicial purposes.

I'll give her that.

Therefore, she's more trustworthy.

[CTLawGuy]

56. she supported DOMA at one time

actual law that stymies gay equality...

[cuke]

59. I do not think that is true

At least, I've never seen her quoted supporting it

[CTLawGuy]

70. here you go

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid46508.asp

June 20, 2007
Tracking Hillary's stance on DOMA, distance from Bill on LGBT issues
Sen. Hillary Clinton went a long way this month toward neutralizing her one lingering Achilles' heel with LGBT voters when she shifted her stance on the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 bill signed into law by her husband that grants state governments the right not to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states.

Clinton’s new stance on DOMA may also be an attempt to establish a separate identity from that of husband Bill Clinton, whose presidency left somewhat of a best-of-times, worst-of-times aftertaste in the mouths of LGBT Americans. While the gay population’s historic role in electing Bill Clinton launched us on to the national political stage, his statutory legacies to us were the military’s antigay “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and DOMA.

Senator Clinton’s change on DOMA came to light when her advisers released the text of her candidate questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign.

...

The position represents a marked departure from her comments to a group of about 40 LGBT leaders in New York last October during her Senate reelection campaign, where she stood firm on the strategic importance of DOMA in helping to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have constitutionally denied the right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

-------------------------------------------
She thought Bill needed to sign it to forestall a constitutional amendment, which I question the logic of. Now she said she would repeal at least parts of it.

[cuke]

107. That doesn't sound like support for DOMA to me

Her "defense" says nothing that's actually supportive of the bill except that it was better than the alternative. Her "support" of DOMA does not include any support for any of DOMA's provisions.

IOW, she does not "support DOMA". She "defends" her husband signing the legislation, but she does not support the law itself

[cboy4]

61. The key is whether she supports it now. I trust her

more than Obama because there's no telling what he's going to do from hour to hour.

[cuke]

63. Clinton has an outstanding record on gay rights

Both she and her husband have taken controversial positions on gay rights. Their records are certainly not perfect, but she is definitely trustworthy on the issue

[MonkeyFunk]

60. I admitted you were right on the federal benefits thing

I was thinking solely along the lines of other states recognizing Massachusetts marriages.

Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about, though. I've probably been fighting for gay rights longer than you have.

[CTLawGuy]

73. I'm sure you have been

I hope you and I can elect someone who will repeal DOMA. I think Hillary, Obama, or any Dem will repeal it.

[cboy4]

83. "I'm sure you have been."

:wtf:

Nice.

[cboy4]

75. It doesn't matter whose been fighting longer.

What matters is getting facts straight.

And the reason you were "thinking solely along the lines of other states recognizing Massachusetts marriages," is because I don't think you knew what DOMA is and does.

People who know what DOMA is and does can't make that sort of mistake.

[Maven]

104. You're wrong there.

DOMA has been used to dismiss claims in almost every federal circuit for recognition of Mass. marriages.

It's constitutionality insofar as it conflicts with FF&C simply hasn't been considered by the Supreme Court.

[cboy4]

23. How do you know DOMA has never affected a "single

person?"

Not that it hasn't affected many.

You say it's not affected a single person.

And McClurkin has affected anyone who has any brains and understands how damaging his claims are.

That's more than a handful.

[ruggerson]

20. Are you gay and if so are you in a state sanctioned DP, CU or a marriage?

n/t

[CTLawGuy]

22. nope

and I am in none of those things. But I don't need to be, in order to know that no state could ever acheive true equality because of DOMA.

[ruggerson]

43. But you also don't have the perspective

of what Bill Clinton did for gays and lesbians. He was the first President who acknowledged us. He included us in his nomination speech, and in his stump speeches, which back in 1992 was a huge thing. His heart was with us, he understood what we were facing. The first week he took power he tried to end the ban on gays in the military and he signed an executive order ending discrimination in the federal government.

Yes, he compromised and fucked up when he should have stood tall. He was overwhelmed by the bigotry that came at him like a wave over the gays in the military fight - so much so that he told David Mixner "wow, they really hate you guys." He signed DOMA in a misguided attempt to fend off a constitutional amendment. He admitted privately that he thought it was unconstitutional and that it would never stand muster if brought to the USSC (another reason, imho, that argues that he shouldn't have signed it).

But, the larger picture is that Bill CLinton pushed the country along, in the right direction. Civil rights are won in inches, not miles, and he did his part to move the nation. Sure, he might have been gutsier, or more of a risk taker, but that doesn't take away from what he DID accomplish.

It is a different era today. If you look back at Bill Clinton, you have to look back in perspective, at the fact that the country was coming off of a twelve year federal government war on gays and lesbians, spearheaded by the religious rightwingers in the Reagan and Bush administration. Gays and lesbians were literally under attack all throught the 1980's. It was a vicious, ruthless war of hatred and lies that served to compound the tragedy of AIDS. ACT UP had to physically fight to even get the NIH and the CDC and the FDA to rise above the prevailing bigotry.

Bill CLinton changed all of that. He swept in with a message of inclusion and his policies reflected that. Signing DOMA was a failure, no doubt. But, for campaign 2008 partisan reasons, to cherry pick that out of the entire context of his administration is intellectually dishonest historical revisionism.

[dbackjon]

71. Another excellent post - you put that quite well

In spite of Clinton's failure on DOMA, I trust him, and Hillary as well far more than Obama, Edwards, etc.

Removing the immediate need for an Anti-gay constitutional Amendment bought us time. If not for DOMA, would we have such an Amendment today? Quite possibly.

Soon, the day will come when gay unions are recognized in at least a quarter of the states. Then, an anti-gay marriage amendment will not be possible to pass. And, as people are seeing that Mass, Canada, UK, etc are not having brimstone flung upon them, attitudes are changing.

Time is on our side, but people like McClurkin, and his enablers like Obama and Oprah, are our enemies.

[CTLawGuy]

94. you are correct in that

Obama has not had the accomplishments that Bill Clinton had. Perhaps if he did, people would be more willing to forgive.

However, I do remember that there was a minor furor over comments made by Howard Dean about how the "Democratic party doesn't support gay marriage." He was the man who risked his political career to put civil unions into law, instead of pushing for a constitutional amendment overturning Baker v. State, or delaying the change in the law until after the election.

[Kucinich4America]

103. Do you really believe that DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" were good things for the GLBT community

Look at the previous historical example of Harry Truman. When he decided that it was time to end racial segregation in the military, it was met with much of the same bullshit arguments used against gays in the military now, mostly that "unit cohesion" crap. Yeah, there was an obvious difference, in that there were no blacks serving in "white" units before then, where obviously gays have served and are serving in the military regardless of how some try to delude themselves otherwise. Point is though, the argument was weak bullshit in 1948, and it's weak bullshit now. Clinton caved to the right wing. Do you really believe Hillary will do better?

Legalized same sex marriage in Massachusetts has proven wrong the ridiculous arguments pushed by the religious reich that "God will pour out his wrath on America the day we allow sodomites to get married". Even with a Mormon governor who had a direct line to God (routed through Salt Lake City) it turns out that the Lord never raised a single objection. Now I'm not saying that implies divine endorsement either, probably more a case of God (being Supreme Lord of the universe and all) has more important shit to worry about.

Can the next President of the United States put a decent sized dent in this 18th century mentality? Maybe if it's a President who is committed to full equality even NOW. And Hillary just doesn't fit that description.

[dsc]

126. There was one big, huge difference

Truman had the power to end segregation in the Armed Forces, because, thank God, we hadn't codified it. Thanks to the anti sodomy regulation, gays were banned by law, from serving. Congress was no more happy with Truman's decision in 1948, than it was with Clinton's in 1993. The difference is it would have taken 2/3 of both Houses to force Truman to back down while it only took 40 Senate votes to make Clinton do so.

[Maven]

105. Excellent post.

As usual

[dbackjon]

30. Definately McClurkin

His views, and Obama's endorsement of them, are a major set back.

DOMA is not worth the paper it was written on. It has had no effect, as it is unconstitutional. Any state that has tried to allow Gay Marriage has done so, without DOMA interfering.

[CTLawGuy]

32. really?

I better tell my lesbian friend who just got married in Boston that she should apply for federal benefits. Somehow I don't think she will get them.

[dbackjon]

38. And if the case went to the Supreme Court, she should win.

[CTLawGuy]

48. you think so

Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy might think differently. I don't trust them to uphold our rights. Do you honestly believe the USSC is itching to promote gay equality?

[ruggerson]

54. Apparently you aren't aware that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion

in Lawrence V Texas, the landmark case that ended criminal statutes against homosexuality in one national fell swoop.

He also was in the majority in Roemer V Evans, another seminal, breakthrough gay rights case.

[CTLawGuy]

62. No I wasn't

that's interesting.

Romer was about making it harder for LGBT activists to get anti-discrimination laws passed. That's an easy one politicallyto oppose. It goes to fundamental political equality and was a pretty egregious law.

Lawrence was about promoting sexual privacy and how sodomy laws violated that privacy. That was probably harder to support politically than Romer, but you can still say, well people have a right to do what they want in private.

Neither of those cases involved marriage which is a political third rail for many people. I think there are many people who would think sodomy laws, and Romer-type laws were unconstitutional but that DOMA was reasonable. I don't think you can predict with confidence that Kennedy is NOT one of those people.

[ruggerson]

77. Not necessarily

Read Lawrence carefully. A lot of rightwing scholars were alarmed that the foundation was being set to throw out DOMA and establish a right to marry (a la Loving V Virginia), based on the reasoning in Lawrence.

A DOMA case will be more than likely decided technically on an interpretation of the "full faith and credit" clause, but the larger argument for gay marriage can be found in some of the language in Lawrence. Scalia himself was very alarmed that Kennedy's opinion was grounded in a form of rational basis rather than strict scrutiny, as he felt that this rationale opened up a whole host of other future possibilities (read marriage) that strict scrutiny would not have.

[CTLawGuy]

91. I think scalia would prefer rational basis

over strict scrutiny, becuase rational basis allows for more laws to be upheld, but I get your point.

Yeah, it may be that the court wants to overturn DOMA. And I hope they do. But I'm not counting on it.

[dbackjon]

55. IF they read the constitution strictly, then yes.

But knowing those slime, not sure.



But the problem is, giving cover/recognition to bigots only sets back the time when true equality is achieved.


IF Obama was truly concerned about gay rights, he would stand up to the homophobes, instead of giving them his approval. That is the danger. Until attitudes are changed, DOMA doesn't mean a thing.

[CTLawGuy]

93. that is mostly right

DOMA does mean a lot, but you are right in that it is a product of people like Donnie McClurkin. But it was also made law by people who were supposedly pro-gay rights (namely Bill Clinton).

Obama handled the situation very poorly, though I think (you may disagree) that he honestly believes in LGBT rights. I think he was driven by political calculation there. It's a black mark against him for sure, but not fatal from my perspective (again I recognize that you disagree).

[loveangelc]

51. I cant believe

Most people voted for donnie mcclurkin. lol

[readmoreoften]

53. SHUT UP YOU FUCKING QUEERS!!!!!!!

YOU DUMB FUCKING QUEERS!!!! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU!!!!! STOP HOLDING MY CANDIDATE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS BEHAVIOR!!!!

:sarcasm:

I just thought I'd translate the post for those who aren't fluent in Bigot.

Anyone who gives a microphone to a man who recently said "gays are killing our children" on television is obviously willing to spread hate to further his campaign. I also believe that a man like that would've been just as willing to sign DOMA ten years ago as Bill Clinton was.

And what does the fact that he is a grammy award winning hatemonger have to do with a damn thing?

[NMMNG]

64. Oh, SNAP

:applause:

[readmoreoften]

67. Man, Buff, how old is this getting?

Hell, I'll be happy to refresh the memories of BO's supporters of why I can't stomach their candidate whenever they want to bring it up. :crazy: Hope it works out well for them!

[NMMNG]

80. It seems now that some of the older ones have returned from the woodwork

And they're rehashing the old stuff. Maybe they forgot stuff during their vacation. :shrug:

[loveangelc]

72. the only difference is

Donnie McClurkin is not going to be making laws and Bill Clinton did (will?)...so why is everyone so willing to praise a man who signed into law a law that is by nature homophobic, and now his wife, but everyone has a problem because a singer no one's heard wants to campaign with Obama...

[CTLawGuy]

74. well he's not even campaigning anymore

I hope he's having nothing to do with McClurkin anymore.

[dbackjon]

79. Read post #43

Excellent analysis by Ruggerson.

[readmoreoften]

82. This isn't about MCCLURKIN. It's about BARACK OBAMA.

Barack Obama used a brain-washed self-hating gay man to prove to fundamentalist voters that he supports their views on LGBT people. I think Bill Clinton's an ass and I wouldn't vote for him either. The fact that Bill Clinton is an ass doesn't mean Barack Obama did not use McClurkin to carry an anti-gay message to an anti-gay voter base to let them know he was "with them."

I have NO EVIDENCE that Obama wouldn't have signed DOMA if he was in the same position as Clinton. In fact, I have no evidence that he wouldn't do worse now for political gain.

He fomented hate. He was the only Democrat to do so in this campaign cycle. He never apologized. He deserves to be excoriated.

[Bluebear]

98. 'everyone has a problem because a singer no one's heard wants to campaign with Obama'

Holy cannoli, talk about rewriting what actually happened. "A singer WANTS to campaign with Obama".

He was **HIRED BY** Obama!!

[terrya]

121. Damn right!

Exactly, absolutely, positively, 100% right.

:yourock: :thumbsup:

[Sandaasu]

66. I WOULD vote DOMA...

But I don't agree with your sentiment that McClurkin is a non-issue, and I'm not going to help make that point.

[readmoreoften]

69. Wha-wha-what??? /nt

[cboy4]

85. You would vote DOMA?? DOMA already exists so there's

nothing to vote.

The way you structured your post, you sound as though you're a right wing DOMA supporter.

I sure hope you tell me I'm wrong to believe so.

[Sandaasu]

87. I mean in this poll. Sorry about the confusion.

I mean that DOMA has done more to harm us (I'm a gay man myself), but I'm not going to vote because the McCloset thing pisses me off enough that I'd rather not help with anything that might be used to defend it.

[cboy4]

88. Oh duh, now your post makes sense.

No need to apologize dude....I'm the idiot who caused my own confusion. lol

[readmoreoften]

89. Ahhhh. Tee hee. Silly me.

:spank:

I thought you sure were one bold anti-gay dem!

[Bluebear]

95. Another heterosexual telling uppity gays to STFU, this time in the form of a lame poll.

Brilliant.

[Occam Bandage]

99. Why are people voting McClurkin?

I assume because it's the more recent, and thus the freshest in their minds. Or is there something else? Do people actually believe a previously obscure gospel singer is worse than DOMA?

[Alexander]

129. The Hillarybots want us to think Obama is hated here.

Which he's not.

[ShadowLiberal]

100. defense of marriage act can be appealed/declared unconstitutional, but not something someone wrote

Just stack the Supreme Court with enough liberal judges, or judges with an open enough mind to fairly interpret the laws without their personal opinions interfering, and the defense of marriage act can be declared unconstitutional for trying to take away the states rights to decide who can marry. The act can also be appealed if enough people get voted into congress willing to appeal it, and a president willing to sign a repeal of it, this option would require public opinion to change however.

The other option you post however is just something that someone said/wrote that you can't just erase the damage of. Chances are no one is going to convince the guy to take back their words, even if the guy made it all up to promote homosexual hatred. The people who are basically 'racist' towards gays will forever be able to pull out something said by some jerk who claimed to once be gay, and will be able to continue using it to justify their hate of gays. If the defense of marriage act got repealed then gay haters couldn't just stop gays from marrying or stop states from recognizing it.

[Clintonista2]

101. I've been accused of creating lame polls in the past

But this one really is out there.

[racaulk]

108. If it were not for right-wing bigots like McClurkin, we wouldn't have DOMA. nt

[William769]

109. Speaking in relevance to time, it's a no brainier.

Your attempt to deflected failed miserably considering I thought your last thread on this subject was sincere. I guess I was wrong.

[zulchzulu]

110. So one guy singing at one concert in a small town rally is more damage than DOMA?

Anyone who voted for that is one dumb, dishonest fuckhead.

DOMA was far worse for pushing against gay rights than some dumbass who sang at a concert for about 2,000 people. As a person who has done lots of grassroots work for LGBT issues and also supports a candidate who had a definitive record supporting LGBT rights, this is just pitful and inane.

[dbackjon]

111. Nice - dumbass dishonest dickhead....

Are you LGBT?

Why is it that most of the LGBT posters on here feel that the hatred espoused by McClurkin, and embraced by Obama is far more damaging? Because it reinforces the attitudes that allow DOMA to exist. DOMA will not change UNTIL those attitudes are changed.

And, as Ruggerson pointed out, DOMA probably stopped a Constitutional Amemdment from being passed - one that would probably NEVER be repealed.

[zulchzulu]

113. The problem is the utter dishonesty from those complaining about McClurkin

Obama does not support what McClurkin thinks. Obama was not there at the event. Obama is firmly for LGBT rights and has proven it with his record.

I've seen posts here that LIE about the McClurkin event and act like it was the biggest event ever to set back the LGBT community. That is nothing but bullshit and they know it.

To be a halfwit and imply that a concert in a small town where one guy sang and bloviated for 5 minutes is more damaging to LGBT rights than DOMA is completely and totally dishonest.

Am I LGBT? No. But I have done a LOT of work over the years supporting and fighting for LGBT rights. Do I have to be gay to be legitimately for gays to have their rights? That also seems to be implied by some here. That's bullshit too.

[Solon]

114. Well shit, I find it ironic that, while you complain about dishonesty, you become dishonest...

Yourself. McClurkin did have the stage for a half hour or so, not 5 minutes, don't minimize this shit, its insulting to TRUE allies of GBLT people.

[dbackjon]

115. No - you do not have to be LGBT to support their rights

That should be implicit for every Democrat. But it is insulting for you to tell Gays that they are fuckwads for being incensed over McClurkin. this is truly one area that unless you have personally felt the discrimination, the pressure to conform, the hatred from so-called Christians, you really can not appreciate how badly people like McClurkin, and Obama's support of him, hurts the LGBT community.

[cboy4]

118. "Am I LGBT? No." .............

SHOCKING. :sarcasm:

The only thing you didn't put in your laughable post is how, you know, some of your best friends are gay.

And you call someone else a halfwit. Priceless.

[zulchzulu]

120. So you have to be gay to work for LGBT rights?

I guess that's what you're saying...right?

As for some of my best friends being gay...yes, I have gay friends.

One of the main reasons I got involved in riding in AIDS Rides raising funds for AIDS was when I saw my uncle die in front of me from AIDS. I will never forget it and made it a point to work for the cure. I also have a brother who is gay and I've been a good friend with him in various times when he had to deal with my Republican parents not wanting to accept his lifestyle. I've done grassroots work in California, Louisiana and Wisconsin fighting anti-gay legislation.

Am I gay? No. Do I care about LGBT rights? Yes.

You can belittle me if ya want...whatever...

[ruggerson]

125. zulchzulu do me a favor

I know you're well intentioned and I find your work for various causes to be very admirable, but please, STOP using the word "lifestyle". It ain't a lifestyle. Lifestyle is good when you're talking about motorcycle riders or nascar enthusiasts or anything else that involves choice. "Lifestyle" isn't good when referring to an immutable, biological fact.

[NMMNG]

133. Speaking as one dumb, dishonest fuckhead

Read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3815743&mesg_id=3816039

[Solon]

112. I can't vote, McCloset is an advocate for child abuse, and DOMA is atrocious...

I don't see how this could be a fair poll, its like trying to vote for Jeffery Dahmer or Manson, to see who is worse.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

116. Outside of DU and a few other lefty sites, no one knows about McClurkin

I've yet to hear a single person bring it up IRL. I had to explain it to some fellow Obama supporters recently. They are all Obama all the time and didn't know about it. I haven't heard a thing about it at several LGBT events I've attended recently. Out of curiosity, I asked some very politically active gay people if they'd heard about it. Only one had, and didn't think it was a very big deal.

And yet here on DU it's getting more votes than DOMA. :eyes:

Too bad, Obama haters, this issue is getting NO traction out in the world.

[closeupready]

119. Does Obama have any openly gay or lesbian campaign workers?

?? Anyone know? And what did they have to say about McClurkin, if anything?

[galledgoblin]

122. joke?

DOMA by a long shot.

McClurkin is an unfortunate individual who has a troubled past and has incorrectly blamed homosexuality for the actions of his rapist.

DOMA is a nationwide law that equality activists have to overturn before any move can be made to move forward.

many Americans have not had exposure to any gays in reality, and draw conclusions from celebrity incidents. had DOMA not passed, I'm confident friends and family would have come forward to tell their loved ones that, yes, they're gay. that would have moved us closer to equality, and any vile words McClurkin spat wouldn't have any impact one way or another. but because the national law in the US puts us in a lower status, those coming out have to be willing to accept second class status.

[LostinVA]

123. Senator Clinton was neither Senator nor President re: DOMA

[LostinVA]

124. New Jersey recognizes same sex marriages from other states and other countries

[dsc]

127. My answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3659509

[Alexander]

128. FACT: McClurkin spoke at the DNC in 1992 on behalf of Bill Clinton.

Any Hillary supporter who criticizes Obama for McClurkin is really just showing themselves to be a hypocrite of the worst kind.

[dsc]

130. FACT

McClurkin didn't claim, not in print, not orally, never claim before the mid 1990's that would be after 1992 incase you don't know math either, to be an ex gay.

[Alexander]

131. FACT: DOMA was much more destructive to gay rights than an obscure preacher...

Who hardly anyone outside of political junkies has ever heard of.

And yet, Hillary still takes credit for all of Bill's "accomplishments".

I wonder what those are, exactly?

[dsc]

132. Clinton hired more gays and lesbians than any previous President

He ended discrimination against gays in every single, solitary department of the federal government save the uniformed military, he increased funding for both HIV research and treatment manyfold. He wasn't perfect. No ENDA was a huge mistake. But he was in many ways our Truman. Now we need a Johnson.

[Alexander]

135. And Obama has an unblemished legislative record on gay rights.

I get it, though. Because one obscure, confused preacher sings for all of a half hour at a concert for Obama, let's forget the candidate's entire gay rights record. :eyes:

Thankfully most Americans are not single-issue voters with tunnel vision.

[dsc]

140. It's the lying stupid

We were lied to over and over and over again about the role this man would have in that concert. We were lied to before the fact, during the fact, and after the fact. Incidently he both MC'd and spoke for a half hour (during which time he talked about being cured and how hateful we were). Why shouldn't I wonder if Obama will take up for us once in the White House when he behaves so dupliciously now?

Incidently, if he is so obscure then why did Obama have him on the stage in the first place? The fact you haven't heard of the man doesn't make him obscure. Just like the fact I haven't heard of many a famous NBA player (I don't follow bball) doesn't make them obscure.

[NMMNG]

134. Obscure preacher?

The man has been profiled on Oprah. She said on her show in 2003 that he was her favorite singer. 2 weeks later (after all of her little lemmings ran out to buy his CD) it went gold. His self-titled first CD stayed on the charts for over 18 weeks and he's got a Grammy. He's no "unknown".

[Alexander]

137. Wow, ONE Gold CD. A whole 0.3% of the American population buys his music.

You are aware that a certified Gold record only sells 1 million copies, right?

Compare that to say, the newly reformed Led Zeppelin, who have 8 Platinum albums to their name.

Yes, he is still obscure. Try answering who all the Grammy winners were in past years. McClurkin is, as of right now, still largely unknown to the general public. That may change, but that's not relevant to the conversation.

"2 weeks later (after all of her little lemmings ran out to buy his CD) it went gold."

"little lemmings"? My, aren't we condescending to certain people? I wonder why...

[NMMNG]

139. I'm aware of what a Gold record is

But he's no unknown, which is why he was selected for Obama's Embrace the Change gospel concert tour (along with the other popular homophobic performers). They needed names that would bring in an audience, and they got them.



"little lemmings"? My, aren't we condescending to certain people? I wonder why...


Yes. When some talk show host says, "buy this" and people jump to do so like a bunch of...lemmings based on nothing but his/her say-so, it's ridiculous. Do people have no ability to think for themselves any more?

[Name removed]

136. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Forkboy]

138. It's like picking between diarrhea and constipation.