Why McClurkin both IS and IS NOT an issue at the same time:

[Political Heretic]

Here's the thing.

I've been a state LGBTQ activist, and led our states PAC campaign against our marriage amendment in 2006 - that after I worked for the ACLU as a community organizer, largely with my gay community.

In my opinion - which is not like, completely ignorant - it is and isn't an issue at the same time.

In a perfect world, free of racism, homophobia, sexism and all forms of bigotry, inviting a person to campaign for you who, it turns out, holds some pretty bad personal opinions would simply be a campaign mistake. It would be an "oops" and move on. Clarify that the person's views are not your views and go forward.

It would be nice if it was that way. But that's not the way it works in a world of oppressed populations. People experiencing ruthless oppression and injustice in a society band more closely together out of sheer necessity.

They defend and protect each other, they become stronger as a community as the only hope for change. When the people they want to trust and count on make what would otherwise be non-fatal mistakes like this, they stir out doubt and mistrust, they create feelings of betrayal, they amplify feelings of cynicism that no one in positions of power will ever seriously take a courageous stand for them as equal persons and that the people they are supposed to support as leaders will always treat them like they're embarrassed of them.

Is it an issue insofar that I believe Obama hates gays, or agrees with McClurkin, or would be less of a friend to the gay community than another democrat? Of course not. However, it is an issue in the sense that Obama's inattentiveness to reconciling with the gay community after a hurtful mistake creates the impression that he is out of touch or unconcerned with the feelings, no more than that - the experience of being gay in America. What it feels like to be a second-class citizen. What it feels like to be an "inconvenience" to politicians who want to win.

People are angry because Obama should have directly reached out to the gay community. It doesn't take much, and its not like he isn't a gifted speaker. He should have simply said, "I totally blew it. Here's what I thought, here's how this mistake happened. It was a tragic error, and if you'll have me, I want you to know that I am 100% unashamed to stand side by side with you, love you and call you my brothers and sisters."

That's it.

Simple.

In a perfect world - it would have been no more than a process error. But in THIS WORLD full of marginalization and oppression, his choice to treat it like it was not and issue has, unfortunately, made it a legitimate issue.

If you search my post history, you'll find another post where I said it was a non-issue. And I tried to clarify that a little bit. But I decided to give a full explanation here as one of my three posts today.

I have, as you can tell, reconciled myself with my support of Obama. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the feelings stirred up by his mistake.

[sandnsea]

1. "A Call For Full Equality"

By Barack Obama
Nov 12

Over the last several weeks, the question of LGBT equality was placed on center stage by the appearance of Donnie McClurkin at one of my campaign events. McClurkin is a talented performer and a beloved figure among many African Americans and Christians around the country. At the same time, he espouses beliefs about homosexuality that I completely reject.

The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to LGBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.

We will not secure full equality for all LGBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it. To achieve that goal, we must state our beliefs boldly, bring the message of equality to audiences that have not yet accepted it, and listen to what those audiences have to say in return.

For my entire career in public life, I have brought the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones. No other leading candidate in the race for the Presidency has demonstrated the same commitment to the principle of full equality. I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples. I will also fight to repeal the U.S. military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, a law that should never have been passed, and my Defense Department will work with top military leaders to implement that repeal.

As President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples – whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. I will also place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. I have supported fully inclusive protections since my days in the Illinois legislature, when I sponsored a bill to outlaw workplace discrimination that expressly included both sexual orientation and gender identity.

That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to people who are not yet convinced.

That’s why I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I reiterated that message in the speech announcing my candidacy for President. Since beginning my campaign, I have been talking about LGBT equality on the stump, from rural farmers to Southern preachers. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say in return. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work that we need to do if we are going to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

The American people have been poorly served by two terms of an administration that seeks to manipulate us through fear: fear over national security, fear over immigrants and fear over gay and lesbian couples in loving relationships. Americans are yearning for leadership that will put an end to the fear mongering and instead begin empowering us once again to reach for the America we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that appeals to the best parts of the human spirit, rather than the worst. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/C5zH

[Ediacara]

2. Tell that to Obama

Maybe he'll listen to you.

[DGoldman1212]

3. So far in my short time here in DU...

I haven't agreed more with anything that i've read posted in this forum until now. Right on!

[Umbram]

7. Spend less time in GD:P

This is not a forum for reasonableness. For that, stick to LBN.

[Umbram]

4. Thank you for a well thought out addition to this dialog

It is good too see something that isn't either a.) complete denial or b.) complete rage.

[readmoreoften]

5. Good post.

The problem is, some of think Obama pulled the McClurkin stunt as a cynical move to send a dog whistle message to conservative Christian voters that they had "nothing to worry about" on the "gay issue" as far as he's concerned. He didn't apologize because it was a calculated political move. Now that he won SC, he can act concerned. It's just a sense that some of us get from the way he handled it.

[Sapphocrat]

8. Count me as one...

...who believes, to the very core of my heart and soul, that "Obama pulled the McClurkin stunt as a cynical move to send a dog whistle message to conservative Christian voters that they had 'nothing to worry about' on the 'gay issue' as far as he's concerned."

[Political Heretic]

9. I'm just not that cynical.

It doesn't make a lot of sense political to try such a complicated tactic to woo a vote you don't need and aren't likely to get anyway.

I'd be more likely to believe that I guess if it made more tactical sense.

[readmoreoften]

10. The reason why I thought it made tactical sense...

Rove, started a stealth campaign in 2003 to target Christian conservative African-American voters. The neoconservatives badly want the African-American Christian conservative vote because they believe they can permanently break the Democratic party by creating a rift between Blacks and gays--they are mimicking the tactic used by the Christian Coalition in 1980, which split staunch pro-labor Catholics from the party over abortion.

Both McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell were used by the Bush Administration to stump for Republicans, so there was no way of "not knowing" what these two men stood for. Rove planted a Christian magazine insert (called Both Sides, if I remember) into newspapers in African-American neighborhoods (I saw images of this insert in 2004, I even linked to it a few months back but the link now forwards to a new, glossy Christian website) that proclaimed that gay people intended to destroy the civil rights legacy by mocking it and something must be done about it. Many older African-Americans were enraged and some in the community began to interpret pro-gay as anti-black history.

Obama needed to win big in SC-- an enormous African-American voting block. He needed to motivate his base at all costs. When Obama was confronted by gay African-American ministers who begged him to speak on his behalf, Obama chose a white preacher a huge insult to Black gays who'd be working for years to show their own community that being gay isn't a 'white perversion.' Worse still, after the whole discussion/encounter, Obama decided to let McClurkin emcee.

The whole brouhaha did nothing but help Obama with the group he was intending to target. He sent a message that, although he disagreed with discrimination, he wasn't going to let the gays push him around.

It may have been smart politics, but for some of us--especially the African-Americans in the community--it was in instance of being politically used and ultimately excluded, which, of course, is exacerbated by the themes of Hope and Unity.

If Obama hadn't done this, I would be voting for him in the primaries because I really don't like Clinton. I may vote for Clinton now. Or I may vote for Edwards as a write-in.

[Political Heretic]

12. I'm half-asleep before bed....

...but this looks good so I'll mark to read tomorrow.

Cheers!

[miceelf]

14. It's possible

The problem with the dog whistle theory is that Obama is the only candidate I know of who speaks clearly against homophobia IN HOMOPHOBIC CHURCHES. It's one thing to go to LGBT events and talk about one's support. But he's the only one I've seen go to a Black homophobic church and confront them about their bigotry.

That certainly doesn't make the McClurkin thing okay, but it does make me skeptical about the dogwhistle theory.

[Sapphocrat]

6. Your guy promises an impossibly perfect world.

Take it up with him.

[Political Heretic]

11. Up. Spent too long writing this.

[Political Heretic]

13. Shameless kick

[calmblueocean]

15. Obama has spoken out in church for gay acceptance. His record does not begin & end with McClurkin.

I don't say this to diminish the frustration you evoke with your post.

But Obama has been outspoken about the need for gay couples to have exactly the same rights as married hetero couples have, has said so to religious audiences, and has even criticized the evangelical movement on the pulpit for "scorning our gay brothers and sisters." I can't recall another viable presidential candidate being as outspoken for gay equality to hostile audiences as Obama has been.

Again, anyone is free to vote how they feel led to vote by their own feelings and conscience, but Obama's record is more than just McClurkin, and his candidacy should be judged on that, IMO.

[Duncan Grant]

16. But that doesn't change the fact that he pandered to anti-gay voters against our expressed wishes.

When he proposes a major LGBT policy initiative in Columbia, SC and refuses to cave to the objections of his Christian fundy constituency -- I'll forgive him.

[Duncan Grant]

17. I think many people don't understand the context.

I appreciate your efforts to contextualize the experience - it rings true. Now, if more people could simply empathize with the experience, there would be much more understanding of this issue.

k&r :thumbsup: