Where the rubber hits the road on the McClurkin issue

[dsc]

As many of you know I am now the advisor of my schools gay straight alliance. In that capacity I have had the amazing priviledge of working with a group of out, gay students who continue to amaze me with their courage, grace, and skill every single day. Yesterday our meeting was about coming out and parents' reaction to the same. All but one was out to his or her parents and in no case was it a purely voluntary outing (overheard phone calls, email snooping, etc). Many of them had parents who gave them DVD's of deprograming programs for them to watch. Imagine being a kid of 14 or 15 and having your parents give you ex gay propaganda. These courageous kids get faced with this in their lives. This is what McClurkin means to me. This is the message, delivered on Obama's dime, to these kids and yes, to me. We all deserve better.

I am not asking for the sun, moon and stars. I am not asking for a candidate to support marriage equality (though it would be nice). I am asking for simple respect. I am asking candidates not to let the people who tell parents to give their gay kids deprogramming DVD's instead of loving them for the talented, courageous, respectful, yes glorious kids they are, deliver a message on their dime. Is that really too much to ask?

[MountainLaurel]

1. Thank you for so succinctly framing the issue

Those kids you are working with are what our concerns are all about.

[Beausoir]

2. Yes they are. The Obama/McClurkin message is dangerous to our kids.

I will never forget what Obama did. Never.

[blm]

6. Please cite where Obama said gays can be cured by prayer. I don't see it anywhere.

BTW, dsc, you know I support you in your mission and have for years.

But when it comes to applying the association test, there would be no one left to vote for. If Obama embraced DM's message it would be one thing, but many a Dem has stood next to DM at some point, just as they stood next to Sharpton though he has made horrific past statements. The exaggeration of DM's involvement in Obama's platform is what is causing the overall distortion of the issue.

Apply the association with bogots against gays test and no Clinton could ever run for office, period.

My guess would be that Billy Graham has more influence over the fundies and their view of gays than McClurkin could ever hope to have. Where is the PROPORTION when it comes to the backlash on those touting Graham as representative of their spiritual convictions?

[mondo joe]

8. He doesn't have to say it. He gives a platform to others to say it. He then adds that his religious

views don't allow him to accept same sex marriage. He then adds that we deserve a "basic" set of rights.

[blm]

12. Tell me where Clintons wouldn't share a platform with the most EFFECTIVE Billy Graham

and his spiritual convictions?

You think Graham is LESS influential on the fundies and their bigotry than McClurkin? Has McClurkin ever held the bully pulpit where he could INFLUENCE legislation for or against gays?

My point is not that one is right and the other wrong - but that PROPORTION wise the blame is skewed.

[mondo joe]

14. If Hillary gave a platform to ANYONE to spew anti gay lies I'd feel the same way about her.

And if she put Graham out to do that on her behalf it would count against her.

[blm]

21. Are you taking what did happen and applying the most extreme view of it to MAKE your case?

Because many a Dem has shared a stage with McClurkin at some point. And only ONE person has been in the position of president where he had the LUXURY of that bully pulpit to LEAD the country on these issues. Instead, you bend over backwards to excuse what was done by a sitting president even as you apply the most extreme judgments against a presidential candidate over a person who sang at a gospel event and whose positions were NOT embraced by the candidate.

[mondo joe]

24. "shared a stage" =/= "giving a platform to spew anti gay bigotry"

We almost all have to deal with bigots and assholes on a professional level. That's life.

There's a difference between doing that and giving one a platform on your behalf. Add to this Obama's other slights, and his refusal to apologize.

You may be fine with it - that's your right. But it won't get my vote.

[blm]

34. I'm not fine with it - but why was it OK for Hillary to court bigots for their support?

You just aren't applying FAIRNESS. You have one standard for Obama you don't apply to either Clintons.


This Village Voice article outlined an event that you can't see reason to muster any outrage:

>>>>>
"Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements of family life and the proverbial white picket fence," he told the crowd. "From their positions of socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences."

The reverend's views won't endear him to Senator Clinton's more liberal supporters. But it's hard to tell if she's suffering any political fallout for glad-handing with him. Sean Cahill, of the Manhattan-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Policy Institute, wrote a January 25 letter to the Boston Globe, calling Clinton's cameo in the city "disturbing." He wrote, "Rivers is a demagogue with a history of trying to pit gay people and people of color against one another."

But Cahill, who's now on leave from his job, stands alone among most pro-gay-marriage activists in New York. No one at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to requests for comment on the Boston event—even though its "Religious Leadership Roundtable" issued a January 19 statement condemning Rivers's Michigan speech as "homophobic." Other gay rights leaders aware of the event didn't return phone calls or declined to comment.

In Boston, meanwhile, gay rights activists have been left scratching their heads. Gary Daffin, who heads the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, likens the reverend to the notorious Alan Keyes. "He's saying the same things that come out of the mouths of the religious right," Daffin says, "so Democrats should stay 100 miles away from him."

Another well-heeled Democratic operative agrees: "I don't think Hillary would've shown up with someone like that in New York."
>>>>>

[mondo joe]

38. I expect all candidates to court bigots, I'm afraid.

I don't expect them to put them out as their emcees, especially after being asked not to by HRC.

You can continue to try to play tit for tat and try to rack up points on both sides. But I can only tell you that when I consider EVERYTHING I know, I come out in favor of Clinton and not Obama based largely on GLBT issues.

[blm]

41. Obama has never had the POWER to persuade a country that Clintons squandered in

pursuit of ....... what lasting legacy? If Clintons dedicated themselves and their TALENT to CRUSHING the momentum of the RW spin on these issues throughout the 90s, we wouldn't STILL be debating this right now.

But since the RW knew he would roll over when push came to shove, they increased the shoving, didn't they?

[dsc]

16. Billy Graham isn't known for anti gay attitudes

I am no fan but he is just a garden variety evangelical. McClurkin's entire message is his ex gay stuff. That is, for me, a major difference. As is the fact Billy Graham didn't headline a campaign event for Clinton.

[blm]

31. Only because he's been too ill. But Graham has been the LEADING evangelical for decades

and the antigay bigotry of evangelicals and support for antigay politicians didn't happen in a vacuum.

Graham had power at his pulpit just as Bill had at his. How was it used? You had Bill advising support for antigay ballot measures just a few years ago. And rolling over for the bigots when HE had the biggest microphoe in the country. THAT gets excused and rationalized completely out of PROPORTION to what Obama gets as backlash over McClurkin.

[Beausoir]

9. He hired someone to do his dirty work for him. And you know it. Obtuse much?

You can try and twist it all you want. Obama hired a gay basher in order to pander for votes.

Despicable.

[blm]

15. And Billy Graham is LESS influential than McClurkin? Being PRESIDENT is less influential

and effects fewer policies than McClurkin?

If YOU do not know that the PROPORTION of outrage is skewed on this issue, then don't expect respect for your analysis.

[mondo joe]

17. Did Hillary have Graham emcee her rally and spew ani gay shit? I missed it.

Link please.

[blm]

27. Bill spewed 'antigay shit' in 2004 when he advised Dem candidates to support antigay ballot measures

in southern states.

Funny how you believe that McClurkin has had more influence on what is said and done in this country than a President Clinton or a Billy Graham.

Where's the sense of proportion? McClurkin was wrong - it would have been a far better thing for Obama to exclude him completely - but there is still a sense of proportion test that any FAIR person applies in these situations when weighing their vote - and I don't see it applied in the Obama v Clinton debate.

[mondo joe]

29. All things considered, I stand where I do.

Having considered the record of the Clintons, of Obama, and all the rest, the end result is my stance.

That's how it weighs out for me.

Pre McClurkin I had no favored candidate. That event pushed me, and others have enforced it.

I can't weigh it out a different way because that's how you would do it.

[blm]

32. Fine - but in the debate itself, respect PROPORTION - why is that too much to ask?

.

[mondo joe]

36. But I believe am respecting proportion.

I am considering the proportion of Obama choosing to cowtow to some bigots after being asked not to by HRC. I'm considering the proportion of his commitment to that group.

There are many proportions to consider.

[blm]

37. I will repost the Village Voice snip on Hillary's embrace of Eugene Rivers....

Add it to the many betrayals by Bill over the years, and it just doesn't pass the FAIR test as I see it. She was just smart enough to be quiet and misdirect attention politically from her own judgement.


>>>>>>
"Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements of family life and the proverbial white picket fence," he told the crowd. "From their positions of socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences."

The reverend's views won't endear him to Senator Clinton's more liberal supporters. But it's hard to tell if she's suffering any political fallout for glad-handing with him. Sean Cahill, of the Manhattan-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Policy Institute, wrote a January 25 letter to the Boston Globe, calling Clinton's cameo in the city "disturbing." He wrote, "Rivers is a demagogue with a history of trying to pit gay people and people of color against one another."

But Cahill, who's now on leave from his job, stands alone among most pro-gay-marriage activists in New York. No one at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to requests for comment on the Boston event—even though its "Religious Leadership Roundtable" issued a January 19 statement condemning Rivers's Michigan speech as "homophobic." Other gay rights leaders aware of the event didn't return phone calls or declined to comment.

In Boston, meanwhile, gay rights activists have been left scratching their heads. Gary Daffin, who heads the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, likens the reverend to the notorious Alan Keyes. "He's saying the same things that come out of the mouths of the religious right," Daffin says, "so Democrats should stay 100 miles away from him."

Another well-heeled Democratic operative agrees: "I don't think Hillary would've shown up with someone like that in New York."
>>>>>

[mondo joe]

39. That's fine. Everyone has to draw their own conclusion in the end. NT

[blm]

42. Grateful for the respectful exchange, mondo joe.

Ever hear of Mondo Video? ;)

[mondo joe]

48. right back at you.

civility is in short supply. Thanks for sharing yours :-)

[blm]

49. I lose my gourd over closed government. Hard for me to maintain civility in those clashes.

We all have our triggers. ;)

[IndieLeft]

64. That is because Obama never said it.

Yes, he made a poor decision to give McClurkin a microphone and a stage.

That is why they are angry with Obama. Because he gave McClurkin the stage to say what he said.

That is all that matters to them. And you are really wasting your breathe trying to convice them of anything else.

It does not matter that he as repeatedly spoke against McClurkin. And it does not matter that Obama went toe to toe with him and told him not to use the bible to insult LGBT community.

None of that matters. None of it. You are fighting a losing battle here, and you will not change any opinions.

[mondo joe]

3. Beautful. Thank you. So many even on DU don't understand the impact of the McClurkins

on gay kids, who every day are driven to homelessness and suicide.

When McClurkin has been compared to using a KKK member, some have mocked the analogy by saying McClurkin and the religious bigots hasn't killed anyone. But they aren't considering the kid driven to suicide.

[BlackVelvet04]

22. My mom was telling me about a young

lesbian woman who goes to her church. The young woman tried "reprogramming", she tried everything she could to not be a lesbian and guess what? It almost destroyed her. She became depressed and suicidal.

She realized that she couldn't wish her sexuality away and embraced it and she and her lover now attend that church together. The congregation has been very loving and accepting.

My 81 year old mother gets it. She and my dad left one church because of their hateful attitudes toward homosexuals.

[BlackVelvet04]

4. No, it's not too much to ask....

in fact it's damn little to ask.

I have a question.....McClurkin is a gospel singer, correct? Why was Obama pandering to the religious by having McClurkin at his event? If that were a republican everyone on this board would be appalled. Why the pass for Obama?

[Beausoir]

5. Because his supporters will overlook anything..as long as he wins.

Civil rights for ALL people? Pfffft. As long as he wins. It's all they care about.

[sandnsea]

7. "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

[dsc]

10. and here he had a chance to be honest, to 'man' up if you will,

and he didn't. He could have said, what he said at the event was wrong, he didn't. Instead he made it sound like the man sang a few songs but in other places spoke against gays. The rest is lovely words but hard to believe given the first part.

[sandnsea]

23. "espouses beliefs... I completely reject"

What the hell does that mean to you?

[mondo joe]

26. It reminds me of an attorney saying something prejudicial or otherwise out of order in a court,

knowing the judge will instruct the jury to disregard it.

[Extend a Hand]

11. I will tell you

why I support Obama in spite of the McClurkin issue.

It comes down to the same issues involved in foreign policy. You have to be willing to open up a dialog even with those people you vehemently disagree with in order to bring about meaningful change.

Obama has in his voting record and his platform pledged to support equal rights for gay citizens and I don't believe that he will 'throw gay rights under bus' in the name of political expediency.

[dsc]

13. This wasn't dialogue

Dialogue would have been a black minister who was gay friendly, and yes there are several, giving that opening prayer. Dialogue would have been a black minister who was gay friendly, and yes there are several, giving a sermon on Obama's dime as well. This was a one sided gay hate fest.

[Extend a Hand]

I don't understand what you are saying?

[dsc]

52. I am saying that the concert was close to a one sided experience

with virtually no input from any pro gay source.

[Extend a Hand]

67. I don't equate

sharing a stage at a concert as endorsement of the singers position. No this was not a dialog it was a concert. I think it would be more difficult to start a dialog down the road if you've already refused to stand on a stage with someone because they are wrong and hold beliefs that you disagree with.

Supporters of both Hillary and Obama support equal rights for gays under the law. We disagree on the tactics required to bring about the real change of heart required to eliminate prejudices againt LBGT individuals in our country.

[dsc]

68. He didn't try just share a stage

While I would be irritated with him singing it is way worse that he gave a sermon. Yes, letting a person give a sermon on your dime does make you a little responsible for what he says.

[Mark Twain Girl]

28. Can I ask -- what kind of "change" comes from a dialogue with those

who think homosexuality is a disease to be cured? How do you reach out to people who think that GLBT Americans are defective or far far uglier things I don't want to type? I have nothing whatsoever to say to these people. I don't want to open a news site and read about one more child, one more adult, shot, beaten, or tied to a fence. This kind of enabling bigotry needs to be shut down, now, not dialogued with.

[Extend a Hand]

35. How do you then have our next president

deal with Islamic countries that routinely KILL people for the 'crime' of being gay?

I'm just saying that refusing to talk to your enemies leads to war and death and hatred.

It's like appointing John Bolton as the UN ambassador for the US. Not everyone is cut out for the task of dealing with enemies. To paint someone who agrees with you as the enemy because they willing to share a stage with someone with whom they disagree is counterproductive.

And I don't want to read about another anti-gay hate crime anymore than you do.

[Mark Twain Girl]

40. Again, I would like to know: what kind of meaningful change

occurs when a politician "dialogues" with Americans who think homosexuality is a disease to be cured? If "you have to be willing to open up a dialog even with those people you vehemently disagree with in order to bring about meaningful change," I want to know what change we can expect here.

Or, to use the example at hand, what meaningful change came out of this particular "Embrace the Change" event?

[Extend a Hand]

47. If your looking for magic or an instant solution

it sure won't happen through dialog. But I do believe that the best way to foster understanding between all kinds of different groups is for them to actually get to know each other.

I think people are going to be less likely to change their (wrong) opinions about gays, muslims, or any other 'different' group if they feel that they have been cast in the role of an evil hate monger in advance. I have known some evangelicals that were evil hate mongers but I've known more that were just wrong, and I've known some that have realized they were wrong and changed their minds and their votes.

It is important in the case of a politician that they have in their voting record and their stated platform demonstrated support for equal rights but that doesn't mean the best tactic to change hearts is to demon-ize those that are wrong.

I think political support for gay rights combined with education, positive personal experience, and a willingness to look for common ground on other issues is way more likely to be successful at bringing about actual acceptance and understanding than political support for gay rights while casting evangelicals and muslims (no matter how wrong they are) as the enemy.

[bullwinkle428]

18. I'm sure all of these parents try to rationalize their actions by saying

something like, "Oh, I'm sure it's nothing more than a 'phase' you're going through", without even stopping to think about the utterly horrific implications of their actions!

Small wonder why the teen suicide rate is as high as it is... :banghead:

[dsc]

20. I am even more upset about the ones who don't show up

just what are they dealing with. These are the kids who are out and proud for the most part and even their stories were heartbreaking. Just what stories am I not hearing?

[bullwinkle428]

44. That must really be chilling - you are doing awesome work

for dealing with these kids and the issues that they're facing!! :hug:

I can only empathize on a small scale, as the stereotypical undersized, quiet, sensitive straight kid that got picked on and called "fag" regularly by bullies as I was growing up...


(edit for spelling)

[blm]

45. Exactly. And it shouldn't be still happening in this century.

And why it is should still be a factor in the overall debate.

If it was politically beneficial to politicians in the 80s and 90s, they would have USED their vaunted talents to make equality for gays a priority then and the debate would never keep replaying itself.

I have worked in the past with the rejected midwest kids in LA as part of an outreach effort. One of them was a 19yo trans-sexual who was also deaf and had very little education. But they all had horrific stories of their abuse and rejections within their own family.

[terrya]

19. And this goes on the greatest page, also. K&R

No, simple respect isn't too much to ask for. We deserve it.

[Barack_America]

25. What kind of candidate would associate with people like...

Bishop Eddie Long:
http://www.sovo.com/2004/12-17/news/localnews/church.cfm

-and-

Dr. Harold Mayberry:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/14/MNGJB5KB9N1.DTL&type=printable

What kind of candidate would accept a campaign donation from one and thank the other for, “fighting for civil rights and equality,”?

Could you support such a candidate?

[HeraldSquare212]

30. The Hillary gig no one will talk about

She's been known to court and fundraise for anti-gay ministers. This really pissed me off when I first read about it, and it still does. Rivers thinks gays are just libertines, who are gay by choice.


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0509,lombardi1,61604,6.html/full

-snip-

It would appear Senator Clinton had picked the perfect venue to start getting religious on the public stage. The January 19 fundraiser for the Boston-based National Ten Point Leadership Foundation had the nominal backing of such leading Massachusetts Democrats as Boston mayor Tom Menino, as well as U.S. senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. More importantly, the 500-strong crowd included many of the city's leading black ministers, who'd likely welcome the sight of the preeminent Democrat dishing out the language of God.

But if you think this mixing of politics and religiosity comes free of charge, think again. The affair's host was Reverend Eugene Rivers III, the spiritual leader of the Pentecostal Azusa Christian Community and a prominent black minister willing to do business with the Bush White House. On January 25, he was among a coterie of clergy who met with President Bush in Washington. His Ten Point foundation has benefited from federal funding thanks to the administration's faith-based program. And Rivers has appeared in documents issued by the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives pushing one of its most controversial elements—that faith-based agencies be allowed to ignore state and local anti-discrimination laws but still receive federal money.

And then there's his outspoken stance against same-sex marriage. Last year, in the battle for civil-marriage rights for gay couples in Massachusetts, Rivers aligned himself with the most extreme opponents. He showed up at forums hosted by the anti-gay Family Research Council. He lent his celebrity to a radio ad paid for by Your Catholic Voice that declared: "Same-sex unions are really about 'special rights' for a special interest group."

Just a week before he shared the spotlight with Senator Clinton in Boston, he sounded a similar theme at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, arguing in a January 11 address that the words "civil rights" have been co-opted by those who support full equality for gay couples. Then Rivers revealed his true conservative colors:

"Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements of family life and the proverbial white picket fence," he told the crowd. "From their positions of socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences."

The reverend's views won't endear him to Senator Clinton's more liberal supporters. But it's hard to tell if she's suffering any political fallout for glad-handing with him. Sean Cahill, of the Manhattan-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Policy Institute, wrote a January 25 letter to the Boston Globe, calling Clinton's cameo in the city "disturbing." He wrote, "Rivers is a demagogue with a history of trying to pit gay people and people of color against one another."

But Cahill, who's now on leave from his job, stands alone among most pro-gay-marriage activists in New York. No one at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to requests for comment on the Boston event—even though its "Religious Leadership Roundtable" issued a January 19 statement condemning Rivers's Michigan speech as "homophobic." Other gay rights leaders aware of the event didn't return phone calls or declined to comment.

In Boston, meanwhile, gay rights activists have been left scratching their heads. Gary Daffin, who heads the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, likens the reverend to the notorious Alan Keyes. "He's saying the same things that come out of the mouths of the religious right," Daffin says, "so Democrats should stay 100 miles away from him."

Another well-heeled Democratic operative agrees: "I don't think Hillary would've shown up with someone like that in New York."

-snip-

Excerpts from a Rivers speech:

http://www.othersheepexecsite.com/Rev_Eugene_Rivers_On_Hijacking_the_Civil_Rights_Legacy.html

But there is nothing
invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual
wants or proclivities as morally equal. People are equal in worth and
dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's
refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is
entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting true
marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle
preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers
and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for
the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

-snip-

Moreover, in light of the phenomenon of judicially mandated
homosexual marriage, we believe that Black leaders need to speak forcefully
in favor of President George W. Bush's proposal for a Federal Marriage
Amendment. If their support for true marriage alienates them from their white
liberal friends, so be it. No community has suffered more than has
ours from the weakening of the institution of marriage at the hands of
purveyors of the doctrines of the sexual revolution.

We respectfully suggest that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not give his life,
nor Fannie Lou Hamer struggle, so that libertines could be free to pursue
their polymorphous forms of sexuality under the banner of the Black Civil
Rights Movement.

[hulklogan]

33. It didn't take long for this thread to be derailed by the "Hillary did it too!" brigade

I have the utmost respect for your bravery and compassion in advising your GSA, dsc. Unfortunately, there are still too many people around here who seem to be competing with each other to see who can care the least about the ordeals of GLBT teens.

[David Zephyr]

43. I am very proud that you finally came out of the closet in your 40's, but during those many years..

a lot of us in the GLBT community were working outside the closet and in far less favorable times.

The "rubber hit the road" with my activism for GLBT civil rights in 1970 and I never left the road. Those thirty eight years qualify me to recognize a friend of our community and Barack is a friend of our community.

You do not speak for all gay youngsters and neither do I.

I am proud that you finally found the courage to come out of the closet and are now in your 40's doing something for our community. I do not hold it against you that you sat it out most of your life, but you are hardly Harvey Milk now that you are "out".

The GLBT community is diverse and those of us who have been fighting in the trenches for decades for our community and who support Barack Obama recognize this man as a champion for our cause as he is for all minorities. He knows first hand what discrimination is.

Sadly, I have witnessed racial intolerance against Barack by some southern white gays who grasp at any straw to justify their unjustifiable hatred of him.

Opposing Barack is one thing. Hating him is something else.

You support Hillary Clinton and I support Barack Obama.

We are both gay men.

End of the subject.

[blm]

46. The point that needs to be heard.

Salute DZ.

[hulklogan]

50. Is it necessary to play "Who's the bigger advocate for gay youth"?

Have you started a GSA at your school?

[dsc]

51. I was out in my 20's and for work in the corporate world

and as an adopted southerner, I am pretty sick already of hearing how racist we all are. Every single, solitary desegregated school I have worked in, has been in the South. No it isn't perfect. But for people who come from places like LA and San Diego, with some of the most segregated schools in the entire nation, to lecture the rest of us on racism strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.

On edit; I would be willing to bet that I worked with and under the management of more African Americans in my career than you have in yours. I have worked in schools that have been virtually all black, my current one is about half black, and my department chair, assistant principal, and principal are all black. Far from this being unusual for me, this has been the norm.

[David Zephyr]

53. Since you and Donnie McClurkin have so much in common, I thought you should have compassion for him.

You and Donnie both wear your Christianity on your public sleeve (your avatar here at the DU is a rainbow cross, for pete's sake).

You and Donnie both struggled with dealing with your homosexuality throughout adulthood.

You and Donnie both oppose a woman's right to choose.

You and Donnie both oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Your obsession with Donnie McClurkin speaks a lot.

It reminds me of the saying "He that hates much loves much."

And when poor Donnie McClurkin finally comes to deal with his sexuality, I hope that I will willing to lend him a hand just as I have tried to do with all closeted homosexuals my entire life.

DSC, Since you and Donnie have so much in common, you should have compassion on him.

[dsc]

54. I favor stem cell research

you are out and out lying. I defy you, and you are a donor so you can search, to find one single, solitary post, anywhere, any place and any time in which I say I don't support stem cell research. You are out and out lying. Oh and one other thing, from age 19 to age 36, when I moved to NC and a GAY FRIENDLY CHURCH, I didn't once, not a single, solitary time, worship in any church, at any time, for any reason. Not Christmas, not Easter, not a single, solitary time. Yes I am a Christian now, but one who believes that gays, like all other people, are created in the image of God and deserving of love and respect.

[David Zephyr]

55. Do you favor embryonic stem cell research? I know you oppose abortion rights.

I wrote "embryonic stem cell research". Even George Bush supports "stem cell research".

You do oppose a woman's right to choose like Donnie.

You do wear your christianity on your sleeve like Donnie.

My point is since you both have so much in common, your obsession with him is curious and I think you would have some compassion on him.

By the way, I am proud of your new found activism at your school where you were recently outed.

[dsc]

58. Yes, I do

and again, search for any post any where, at any time in which I don't. It should be noted that I have repeatedly discussed this as it is a point of contention. Many Protestants who are pro life, and I am a Protestant, are in favor of embrionic stem cell research. Most Mormons are, many Baptists are, and most orthodox Jews are as well. Only Catholics and some very hardline Evangelicals are opposed as a matter of orthodoxy.

[David Zephyr]

61. You know I like you, dsc. I give you a hard time because I do.

;)

[dsc]

66. I also like you a great deal as well

and know your back story. But I think you are totally whistling past the graveyard when you blame the very real problems many gay men and women have with Obama over this issue and quite a few others, entirely on racism. Sure there are racist gay men but presumedly you wouldn't count the black ones in that category and they are also appalled by this. The South is by no means perfect, and gays here are more often Republican than they should be, but we are also way more racially integrated in our bars and our workplaces than many similarly situated northerners are.

[mondo joe]

63. I'm not like Donnie. But he's a sick victim, and like a child abuser who was abused is repeating a

cycle that needs to end. And I have a serious problem with Obama giving him a platform to continue that cycle in what I consider a cynical trade for some votes.

Donnie isn't half the person DSC is. Whatever led him to this place, he took one road and DSC another.

[mondo joe]

56. Your experience qualifies you to have one opinion. Other GLBT people have another.

[David Zephyr]

59. That's my point. And we agree...to disagree. I like the fact that our community is not monolithic.

dsc is a wonderful chap and he knows that I like him a lot.

And, mondo joe, you are not so bad yourself and I enjoyed the exchange you had with blm. Most civil and respectful in the end.

We are on the same side here.

[mondo joe]

60. We're not monolithic. And yet surveys and exit polls reveal a strong preference for Clinton.

I'm not saying that makes Clinton the acceptable or right choice.

But I would like it if non GLBT people would ask, with sincerity, why that is rather than berate us because they agree with us about issues that are critical to us, and merely an abstract to them.

[David Zephyr]

62. I'd have to agree with you.

While most of my friends are supportive of Barack, the little "evidence" available tends to support your point that Hillary has the edge. I grant you that.

But, in my eyes, they both will be quantum leaps for the GLBT community. Hey, I'm one of only maybe 10 people at the DU that want them on the ticket together.

[mondo joe]

65. I don't mind disagreeing about the ticket, with other gays or with straghts.

And I have no complain with anyone simply because they support Obama.

My greatest frustration, by far, on DU about this is simply the enormous disrespect for GLBT members making a determination based on GLBT issues.

[NMMNG]

57. Thank you for your personal story

It's direct evidence of what McClurkin and his "Ex-Gay" ilk do to American LGBTs every single day. The "Ex-Gay" movement comprised of ordinary homophobes (who are bad enough to begin with). They are far more insidious. "Ex-Gay"s are is a psycho-spiritual terrorist industry that seek not only to take away our existing rights, but keep us from getting any more, and ultimately to eradicate us . That's why we fear them more, fight against them harder.