I respect your decision NOT to vote for Obama because of McClurkin

[cali]

I do not respect being told that I'm homophobic because I do support him- and that's happened to me several times on this board, including today. I do not respect claims that Obama is homophobic either. His record and his rhetoric repudiate that claim. Want to argue that he doesn't put a high enough priority on GLBT issues? You've got a good argument. Want to claim that he'll have Donnie McClurkin in the Lincoln bedroom? You are full of shit.

I really do respect the voices of people who feel that the McClurkin episode was so egregious that they cannot support Obama. And I think it was a huge mistake and showed an indifference or simple lack of understanding about how profoundly hurtful people like McClurkin are to the GLBT community- and the latter is not something that should simply be excused either.

One other thing that bothers me, is that Clinton supporters seem to forget that Hillary has been endorsed by Reverend Eugene Rivers, a prominent Boston clergyman who spews the same crap as McClurkin. She hasn't repudiated that support. Granted, she hasn't given him a platform upon which to speak, but that's the only thing that differs from the McClurkin business.

Obama supporters do not deserve to be labeled as homophobic simply by dint of their support for him.

I don't enter these discussions often, except to say that I understand and respect people making a decision not to vote for Obama based on how he handled the McClurkin episode, but after having been accused of being homophobic because I do support him, one too many times, I wanted to throw my two cents in. I'll probably regret doing so.

[Ian David]

1. Maybe McClurkin is campaigning for Obama, because if Obama wins, he can come out of the closet again

[wndycty]

2. Interesting. . . .hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

:kick:

[terrya]

3. Simply put...I wished he would have apologized for McClurkin.

I know, Obama said that he "strongly disagrees" with McClurkin's views. But I don't think Obama, even to this day, really understands how blatantly offensive the "ex-gay" movement is to our community. I don't need to retell the history of this whole sad episode. You know it as well as I. For me, "strongly disagrees" doesn't cut it when you're talking about a movement that is heavily financed and supported by the worst, the very worst, enemies of the LGBT community.

I don't think of you and the Obama supporters as homophobes. I know you've been wonderful expressing your solidarity with us. Nor do I think Obama himself is a homophobe.

And again, simply put...I trust Hillary more on LGBT concerns than Obama. Period.

[cali]

5. Thanks Terrya.

I often think of you when I think of people on this board possessed of loving kindness. And I completely respect where you stand. I agree that Obama has a lot of ground to make up on this issue and that his statement of "strong disagreement" with McClurkin isn't enough. I don't know whether he gets it as to why this incident appalled so many people. I hope he has people close to him who have let him know. Hillary may be better on GLBT issues than Obama. It's hard to know, but both of us know one thing: McCain would be dreadful- no better than bush.

[Cornus]

10. Like Clinton apologized for her support of the Iraq war? nt

[JVS]

16. It's probably not the best time to try to score a gotcha now

[mkultra]

24. maybe you should be tolerant of them

They are confused souls awash in an ocean of influence just like the rest of us. They just happen to be more mouthy about it.

[terrya]

29. No.

No, I won't be tolerant of the Focus on the Family and the American Family Association and Concerned Women of America and any other organization that wishes to deny me and my community full equality.

[mkultra]

31. i guess your the other side of the same coin then

[Solon]

36. That's just stupid, it is not the other side of the same coin...

Its like saying we should be tolerant of the KKK, Aryan nations and other haters.

[mkultra]

39. and we should

Tolerance is like free speech and justice. Its spreads evenly when you pay it more than lip service.

[Solon]

43. No we should not...

I will not tolerate bigotry, it just gives those horrendous viewpoints legitimacy that they do not deserve.

[mkultra]

44. tolerance never gives legitimacy

anger and hate are the same no matter what their motivation. All evil starts with some kind of rationale.

[Solon]

46. Hatred, regardless of form, should NEVER be tolerated, period. n/t

[mkultra]

47. does that include your hatred for them?

[Solon]

48. I don't hate them, I hate their bigotry...

McClurkin is a sad individual who suffered personal atrocities that I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy. But that sympathy does not get in the way of the condemnation I have for his views.

[mkultra]

49. you sound like a christian

That claims he really dislikes someone but still loves them in christ.

Your rationalizing your hate just like they do.

[Solon]

51. I don't think so...

First, I'm talking about my own personal views, many Christians assume their God condemns the same people they condemn, in other words they are guilty of hubris if nothing else. The second difference is that I condemn a VERY specific opinion of others, that of those who hate others due to some immutable characteristic. Opinions can be changed, sexual orientation, race, and other characteristics cannot.

[mkultra]

54. ahh,,

So in a sense, you condemn their inability to come to an enlightened decision as quickly as you. That seems like your essentially condemning their stupidity. Or perhaps is it their poor upbringing you condemn? or maybe thier willingness to trust those who raised them?

the Christian reference was only to attempt to illuminate the dichotomies of hating someone while claiming that you don't hate.

To be clear, i disagree and denounce the beliefs of those who would sujugaet others due to belief(of any sort). And for the hillary folk, ill even say that i also reject those beliefs.

No matter how specific the target of your hate, its still hate, and hate of someones opinion is really just hate for them as well.

[Solon]

57. None of those things you listed in your first paragraph is an excuse for bigotry...

Many people were raised in similar households and such and didn't turn into raging bigots. Whether they are "enlightened"(your word, not mine) or not is to be determined by themselves. I can only judge them on their actions and words, no more, no less.

Also, I never really claimed that I didn't hate, its just that not all forms of hate are equal to others, people hated the institution of slavery, people today hate current practices of genocide. Are or were those not actions by certain segments of the population that negatively affect another section of the population?

From a societal point of view, bigotry against those who are different because of some immutable characteristic can lead to the above atrocities, in addition to that, the fact is that I never said that bigots should have their rights to free speech or press violated to suppress their bigoted views. All I said was that I don't tolerate them, and I will exercise my own free speech rights to condemn them.

[The Anti-Bush]

59. You are forgetting one thing there.

Actions and words are two completely different things. It is, after all the Clinton Campaign that says it's "just words"

You cannot compare the ACT of actually enslaving an entire race of people to someone saying horrid things about another group. You are reaching there. The last time I checked, words never physically harmed anyone.

[Solon]

64. And that's where you are wrong...

Read this post that I'm about to link to in its entirety:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3640165

Then try to have the audacity to say that words never physically harmed anyone.

[The Anti-Bush]

66. Okay, words still don't physically harm anyone.

I'm not trying to be insensitive here, but I am afraid it is going to come off that way.

Your friend tried to commit suicide because of a bad breakup? Is that it? Seriously, is that what your post is saying? I feel very bad for her, and for you for having to deal with that situation. It must have been very difficult. But I don't' see the connect between that and this.

I have a straight friend who tried to kill himself after he and his girlfriend broke up. That's not a "orientation" issue, that is just an issue.

Please clarify what you are talking about.

[Solon]

67. It was more general than "just a breakup"....

At the same time, her parents shunned her, she was dealing with verbal harassment at work due to her orientation, and a host of other issues. The fact is that GLBT teens, for example, are 3 times more likely to commit suicide, and its mostly due to words, and in some cases actions. The fact is that a blanket statement such as saying that words don't physically harm people is false. Words can kill.

[The Anti-Bush]

68. You didn't put all that in there.

You are talking about a long period of hateful things being said to one person over and over.

That is a pattern, and that is different than one man getting up on one stage and talking bullshit to a bunch of people who feel the same way he does.

I feel bad for your friend, and hope she is doing fine now, but these are not the same types of things.

[Solon]

69. Ah, but you see, people like McClurkin REINFORCE such patterns...

in our culture. And those people that feel the same way as McClurkin, at least some of them are going to be parents of GLBT children, and they will perpetuate a culture of intolerance that will lead to many more GLBT people dying, either by their own hands or at the hands of people who believe like these assholes believe. That's the danger. This incident in question may be isolated, but it represents a pattern of homophobia that is, unfortunately, tolerated in our society.

[The Anti-Bush]

71. See, I disagree with that wholeheartedly

Not that McClurkin is a pathetic excuse for a human; the part about perpetuating a culture of intolerance.

My father is a blatantly homophobic, and as I just learned a complete racist, and I don't share any of those views. We just had a huge blowout over this last week.

I have quite a few friends in the same situation. Times are changing, and people like that, they are diminishing in numbers. It's only a matter of time. Our generation sees things different, and our children will be even more progressive that us.

The vocal minority does not scare me, and does not intimidate me. And as this country continues to grow, narrow-mindedness will continue to diminish. It's just how it works.

[Solon]

73. Hell, racism is still a problem is this country...

we shouldn't just stuff our fingers into our ears, sing "la la la" and pretend Homophobia isn't a problem in this country either.

[The Anti-Bush]

75. Um... I didn't say that

As I said, I prefer to contront it. However, I still have to respect that persons right to feel that way.

This is what happens when one person's rights infringe on someone elses. You deal with it, but you don't get to take away someone elses rights because you (and by that I don't mean "you") are offended by them.

[mkultra]

86. that is true

but America is about free speech which means that the law isn't here to help people grind their personal axes.

The only thing you can do about hate speech is learn to adapt just like every other living creature.

When the eagle loses its eggs to hunters, gets its nest smashed and gets shot at, it does impale itself on a stick out of misery.
It adapts and struggles. You may say that animals are far less evolved than humans and thus lack the "humanity" for misery, but i say this. How enlightened can a being truly be if it can find no other purpose in life but to date another person.

[mkultra]

85. ok, ill try to be as decent as i can while being honest

it seems a bit petty to entertain suicide over a bad breakup just as it seems petty to torment yourself over bruises. I think that if you are torn up inside about the bruises you left when you averted a suicide, that maybe you should try get away from the city.

Like, go live someplace else or head out to the mountains for a year. The dynamic in the real world is much different. Once you learn the eb and flow of nature, the volume sort of gets turned down on this kind of emotional hodge podge.


I say this not to poke at you so try to read it without malice.

[mkultra]

62. i see

Well it sounds like we just differ on what we think tolerance is then. If you mean that you will always speak out against and work against bigotry, then im with you. But i will always do it in a way thats decent to the offender thus tolerating them if not their very existence.

I disagree that forms of hate very in value. I do think that intensity of hate can vary. I think that you can oppose bigotry without hating bigots, which is tolerance. Thats all im asking.

Hate is a poor guide, its what leads the bigot to stand on the wrong principle and what would lead the opposer to imprison him if he were allowed. My point is that your stand against bigotry either comes from being the target of it or it comes from an understanding that all humans are equal and thus equally deserving of our tolerance.


If you hate bigots just because you have been the target of their cruelty, then you have failed to take the high ground.

[Bake]

72. Some things are simply right or wrong.

You can't love both justice and injustice at the same time. You can't love those who have been doing their damndest to promote injustice in America (guess which side McClurkin is on). To think otherwise is just a bunch of unrealistic crap.

Bake

[mkultra]

80. you cannot also

stand against hate with hate. You CAN love everyone if you care to. Thanks for your input, but cynicism sounds pretty limited to those who know otherwise.

[mkultra]

87. i forgot to mention

bake? why yes, i think i will.

[NMMNG]

90. Be tolerant of the intolerant who seek only to harm?

The intolerant who wish only to keep us second-class citizens ? The intolerant who, if they don't harm or kill us themselves, breed the hatred that causes others to do so?

Not on your life. It is perfectly acceptable not tolerate the intolerant.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

[leftofcool]

4. I have to agree here

that Obama supporters should not be called homophobic just for supporting him. That's just silly. I would respectfully disagree that his "record and rhetoric repudiate his claims." His record largely indicates that he has ignored the gay community and if you use rhetoric to imply that you warmly welcome all gays into your fold, then you probably shouldn't have the support of someone like McClurkin. Nice post.

Left of Cool

[TomClash]

6. You're 100% spot on

No way can anyone call someone else homophobic because this clown appeared at an Obama event. Frankly, I would go further and say that it is a poor reason to cast a vote against Obama. If you are gay or a lesbian and you want to vote against Obama, at least vote against him because he does not support same sex marriage (of course that makes him no different than Hillary or JE).

[Creideiki]

55. Gradations?

I don't really think Obama's a homophobe. I really don't. At the same time, I don't think he "gets it" when it comes to gay rights and the gay community. Illinois still has its DOMA, and only passed non-descrimination after the Democratic legislature, governor, and AG took over--and even then it was not a no-brainer. Obama really stands a chance. He can open an honest dialog and try to figure this stuff out.

Edwards got a pass because of two things: Elizabeth's open statements and his statements during the Visible Vote debate where he really seemed to be looking at it as a civil rights/equality issue. He's approaching things from the viewpoint that everyone in the country deserves equality and has stated that he believes that a leader at the top can change things. With Elizabeth's influence, I'd be confident that DADT, DOMA, and some form of civil recognition of partner benefits would be pushed--at least the dialog held at the national level. Edwards also got a pass because I liked his views on my other primary issues: healthcare, education, poverty, and injustice.

Hillary got one pass because I remember intimately what led up to DADT and DOMA. If Illinois can pass a DOMA, then the amendment would have gone through. I also respect Hillary's first attempt at healthcare (much more than the current incarnation), and her views, again, on the primary issues besides civil rights that I consider important. And I believe that Bill, in many ways, can be the liberal influence on Hillary as First Gentleman that she was on him as First Lady. I'm from a state that's already voted, at least, and can't bring myself to watch the 700 Club interview because I fear that she would lose that pass.

Obama got one pass because I believe he is not a homophobe. However I'm not getting warm fuzzies from Michelle, where the Democratic presidential candidates spouses seem to be able to really embrace the weakest, most vulnerable members of society. The McClurkin debacle really scares the crap out of me. That smacks of triangulation--there's so many gay votes available and so many homophobic votes available, and the homophobic vote likely outnumbers the gay-friendly vote based on the number of states with anti-gay marriage legislation and amendments. If he'll triangulate on this issue, will he triangulate on other issues? If we can get good progressives into Congress that pass legislation, will he triangulate a veto to pay back that gay-antagonistic sector of the population? It really makes me nervous.

So now I'm at a really nervous place. His VP choice will make a big statement. I honestly think he'll go with someone that I'm really, truly uncomfortable with--remember traditionally (unlike this cycle) Democrats have gone left in the primary and moved center during the GE. There's not much room to "move center" on. His education policy makes me want to vomit. Fortunately, he's solid on poverty issues, particularly where they touch onto the ethnic divisions that have hurt a lot of people unjustly. And, well, to overuse the phrase on his healthcare policy, there's no there there. It's like saying, "As president I wouldn't have vetoed SCHIP." Uh...hooray and welcome to the human race?

DK was wonderful, and I wish he could have somehow gotten past the first rounds of the primaries. That man is purely a good human being (and I wish him well in his Congressional re-election bid--hopefully he can get a higher post in the House next time, as he's earned it.) I can only hope his influence is able to resonate more strongly in the future, wherever life takes him.

McCain is like Evil-light. I don't think the country could survive 4 or (heavens forfend 8) more years of this parsing of words and humanity until nothing means anything any more. Worse, while he generally would tend, I believe, toward the center (far more than the Boy King), he's going to feel a strong pull throughout a presidency to govern further and further to the right.

[cboy4]

7. Cali, I'm not sure who's calling you homophobic, but

it's clear that, in my opinion, you're not.

All I ask from people who support Obama is they respect the problem we have with him regarding McClurkin.

And you obviously do.

We disagree about different things from time to time, but I've never once thought of you as a bigot.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. cali, I'm sorry if someone here has called you homophobic

I'm positive it can't be true.
The current version of DU tosses around 'sexist' and 'racist' and 'homophobic' so carelessly that the words have little apparent meaning here anymore. Alerting on posts and posters that sling those words out as insults and personal attacks doesn't even get them deleted anymore. DU is in a very sad state currently.
Again, sorry that someone - in their ignorance - called you that.

[cali]

9. Thanks, MP

Like any other contentious issue, some people are using it as a weapon. Sadly, it's not the first time it's happened to me. And in another thread I saw someone saying that any GLBT person voting for Obama was self-hating.

[KittyWampus]

11. Hillary needs to reject and denounce support from Rivers and Mayberry.

And I herewith reject the few scab-pickers here on DU.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. in the primaries, yes...in the GE, it makes no sense not to vote for him

you're not going to find a better candidate in the GE than him.

[cali]

13. right. sorry if I didn't make that clear

I don't think there's any excuse for not voting for the dem nominee.

[soleft]

14. As a gay Obama supporter

How could I possibly think you are homophobic? I wonder what your accusers think of me and other gay Obama supporters. Curious, but it won't keep me up at night.

[Umbram]

18. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4793192&mesg_id=4793314

If you are gay and support Obama you probably "don't have much self confidence," according to some at DU.


:crazy:

[donheld]

34. Thank you Umbram

I've been basically told the same thing.

[cboy4]

88. Or self esteem, true, true. n/t

[The Anti-Bush]

60. You don't want to know.

I forget who said this to who, but the worst I heard was "self loathing"

[bicentennial_baby]

78. According to some who shall remain nameless,

I've "forgotten that I was queer", due to my support of Obama. And that is an utter, utter load of crap right there. x(

[JVS]

15. I agree with every word of this post. K&R

[Barack_America]

17. IMO, McClurkin has become the GLBT "terra" card.

My biggest regret about the McClurkin issue is that it has become a "terra" issue. It has thoroughly prevented productive discourse about GLBT issues pertaining to this election (i.e. what will be done with DOMA, DADT, etc.)

Obama was WRONG to let McClurkin speak in SC.

--but--

Hillary has also endorsed Rivers and used his church for a fundraiser.

Sen. Clinton's position on gay rights came under scrutiny on Jan. 19, when she traveled to Boston to speak at a fundraiser for two "faith-based" youth-outreach organizations headed by Eugene Rivers III, a minister and strident opponent of gay marriage. Rivers, who is black, opposes gay-rights groups' use of the term "civil rights" to describe their fight; as the Village Voice has reported, Rivers regards homosexuals more as sinful hedonists than as a group whose rights are being violated.

A week before the fundraiser that Clinton attended, Rivers said in a speech: "Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements of family life and the proverbial white picket fence. From their positions of socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences." Sen. Clinton's appearance at Rivers' fundraiser prompted criticism from some gay-rights advocates. In a letter to the Boston Globe, Sean Cahill, a policy director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called her appearance "disturbing."

Clinton's decision to endorse Rivers' work is of a piece with her recent political calculation. As her husband did before her, Hillary is skillfully mining centrist political ground in search of her political fortune. In the same way that she's reached out to conservatives on abortion, the speech at Rivers' group was a way of signaling that she's at least open to other views on social issues.

Rivers, who is a Democrat, says that he thinks Clinton's strategy is clever. "She doesn't share my view on gay marriage or gay rights, but we didn't talk about it because that was not the reason she was there," he says. He adds: "I think what Hillary Clinton actually wants is a more open-ended, less-polarized discussion of the issues. She understands you are not going to win presidential elections by taking a hard, non-negotiable line on these issues . You might be elected president of San Francisco, or you can be president of the lower east side of Manhattan or of Paris, France, but you're not going to get elected president of the United States."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/15/finkelstein/

Let's face it folks, neither of our candidates are perfect. Can we get back to discussing where they stand on GLBT rights issues and how to ensure that they fight for them?

[cali]

20. Thanks for posting that

I mentioned Rivers in my OP because I do think there's been a degree of hypocrisy about all this from some Clinton supporters lately.

[Barack_America]

76. More than a degree, I think.

The Clintons have shown themselves willing to throw the GLBT community under bus when it's politically convenient. Rivers' comment regarding Hillary in the piece that I posted highlights that plainly.

This McClurkin thing is much more a rally cry by pro-Clinton GLBT individuals than a real issue, IMO.

[Tatiana]

21. Agreed. Thanks so much for the information in this response. n/t

[VenusRising]

45. Obama's open letter to the gay community

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4808950

[TheDonkey]

70. This McClurkin crap is only on DU. My gay friends do not care nor do I

I'll look at Obama's record and his plan for GLBT rights and they would be a 100% better step in the right direction over Bush and McCain.

[Barack_America]

77. That's encouraging to hear.

I got the chance to hear Margaret Cho speak on behalf of Obama last weekend. The first question in the Q&A portion was about McClurkin. I was surprised and relieved to hear that she was unaware of the dust-up.

[onenote]

19. Spot on, cali. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. i am sorry you were called homophobic however the only people i think who are homophobic

are the ones who seem to think that we are falsely outraged over mcclurkin

also you should know better that an endorsement is not the same as campaigning with someone or letting them MC your event.

[cali]

23. Can we put one thing to rest? Obama has NEVER campaigned

with McClurkin. He wasn't at the rally in SC with McClurkin. I noted in my OP that Clinton hadn't given Rivers a platform to speak on, but she has warmly accepted his endorsement, and it's my understanding that he is a friend of hers and Bill's.

And unfortunately, there are some people who are using the McClurkin thing as a cudgel and who aren't genuinely outraged. I will say that most of those folks seem to identify as straight.

[Solon]

37. Obama was there by teleconference, doesn't that count...

also called McClurkin one of his favorite performers. Talk about slapping people in the face.

[mkultra]

25. Your outrage needs ot be properly couched

You have every right to be mad at McClurkin but i think your taking it way to far if you think that having him sing the opening at an event shows that Obama is a homophobe. We live in a world of people with mixed opinions. Its hard sometimes to know everything about someone.

Now, i do agree that at times, people use ignorance or excuses to mask a truly malicious intent. But if you think that this occasion is enough to call Obama a homophobe, then i think your being irrational.


Dont forget, McClurkin is just a very confused gay man. Hell work his issues out in time.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

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

[JuniperLea]

35. Where did the poster call BHO a homophobe? n/t

[mkultra]

38. the context is about the implications to Obama

Which is that he is either a homophobe, like McClurkin(self loathing i guess) or unsympathetic to GLBT issues.


Stop equivocating, its why she is losing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. the context i was addressing was CALI being called a homophobe,

seriously, can you not read?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. at no point have i called obama a homophobe.

:eyes:

[NorthernSpy]

50. well, Terrya's outrage certainly didn't strike me as false...

... to cite one example.

i am sorry you were called homophobic however the only people i think who are homophobic are the ones who seem to think that we are falsely outraged over mcclurkin

But as for everyone who leaps at the chance to shred Obama over McClurkin, while carefully ignoring Hillary's 700 Club appearance, her association with Rev. Rivers, and her weak position on the DOMA, then yeah: such transparently partisan and purely tactical outrage does not seem especially sincere, now that you mention it.

[cali]

27. kick

[Greyskye]

28. Thank you.

Well said.

:kick:

[UALRBSofL]

30. It's not just McClurkin but it's also Rev Jeremiah Wright

Yes McClurkin is a homophobe and denounces GLBT's but Rev Wright, Obama's spiritual guide and pastor has made statements that were racists, anti-gay, and anti-semitic. And I haven't seen Obama denounce Wright. This is just one issue I have with Obama. I'm not going to post the things Wright has said in the past but I just wanted you to be aware that some of his endorsements goes beyond McClurkin.

[cali]

32. Don't just make a claim like that without quotes and links

and expect people to buy it, and the little disclaimer about how you won't post links and quotes makes you even more suspect.

[FrenchieCat]

33. And for everyone of those you list in reference to who supports Obama,

I can name you that many who support Hillary Clinton.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

To have one candidate not held to the same standards as the other, is a pure discriminatory practice that some posters here have adopted. On the one hand, these posters reserve the right to be the only ones allowed to discriminate and call it rational. The fact of the matter is, to totally dog out one candidate day in day out, while the other one is not, flies in the face of any fairness in context. In addition, nothing is ever said of barack's inclusion of his Gay brothers and sisters in so many mentions that he makes to his 10,000-20,000 audience members everywhere he goes.

Personally, one can support whom one wants to. I just think that intellectual basic fairness should be incorporated in one's beliefs, otherwise, what's the point?

[UALRBSofL]

53. Frenchie I'm sure both Hillary and Barack have endorsements

It doesn't mean I wont vote for him in the GE because I will. I just didn't want to post links or his statements because I believe it's counterproductive.

That said, I don't despise Obama because of his affiliation with McClurkin or Wright. If that were the case I would have denounced my father years ago or I would be a hypocrite because he is a staunch republican and it took him until 5 years ago to accept my partner and I. He's finally coming around. My parents live in arkansas, and, my dad hates Bush and has already said he would vote for whoever our nominee is. I was shocked. His friends are republican and when they say something about the candidates he corrects them. He doesn't want another republican in office after Bush's blunders. I'm still in shock over my dad. :)

[The Anti-Bush]

61. I hate to add to this, but if you go on google, like I just did

there are tons of links. Sorry Cali, but it is true. If you really want them, here they are.

this is just the search... tons of results.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Rev+Jeremiah+Wright+homophobic&spell=1

[NorthernSpy]

52. back that shit up with proof or retract it.

Ball's in your court.

[Barack_America]

58. The same Jeremiah Wright who has a GLBT outreach ministry?

The same Jeremiah Wright who has taken heat in the past for his GLBT support?

ETA: Forgot link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/profiles/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,7216108.story?page=1&track=rss

[MonkeyFunk]

40. I won't refuse to vote for Obama over this....

but it's a big reason why he's not my preferred candidate. He really lost his halo for me when he did this.

I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I won't do more than that for him.

[bigbrother05]

56. K and R

[ecstatic]

63. My problem is the double standard. Clinton's record

is not perfect--it's far from perfect. Obama's campaign messed up--that is true. I was personally offended when his campaign implied that soooo many blacks are homophobic because that is not supported by any evidence.

From what I've read, the GLBT community has a tremendous affinity for the Clintons and that would have been the case regardless of if Obama entered the race or not. However, to drum up a bunch of ongoing outrage towards someone you had no intention of voting for in the first place is very disingenuous.

[Solon]

65. Its the generalization that I really object too...

Not liking either candidate, indeed, having no candidate to vote for on Super Tuesday really sucked. But what sucks even more is when supporters of one candidate, just because I object to pandering to homophobes, from either side, claim that I support the opposing candidate. Both Hillary and Obama can bite me.

[avrdream]

74. I have a hard time respecting your decision to vote for BO despite McClurkin.

This one is tough for we gays, Cali. You open up our wounds with threads like this even though I know what you are trying to do.

[cali]

81. I understand that it's tough for a lot of GLBT folks

and I respect that, as I've said. But I don't see how this thread opens wounds. If you're voting for Clinton, I respect that choice even though I could never vote in the primary for someone who voted for the IWR. Never. And heaven knows, there are plenty of threads excoriating Obama for McClurkin. That's fine. I prefer to respect everyone's right to make a decision on whom to support in the primary. I'd never argue with you about your choice, or tell you I disrespect it.

[jgraz]

79. It is possible to support Obama AND hate what he did with McClurkin

I do. Just like I supported Edwards but hated his vote on the IWR (and his position on gay marriage).

If we wait for the perfect candidate to come along, we'll be waiting a long time. I think Obama needs to be pressured and educated on this subject rather than rejected (denounced?) for it.

[bicentennial_baby]

83. Same here!

:toast:

[Mike03]

82. I am siding with you 100% on this one.

For the same reason I can't respect a talk show host whose best argument against Hillary Clinton is that her husband's first official gesture in office was "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," I really don't take this McClurkin business seriously at all. In fact, you are too generous to say you respect anyone for allowing such a trivial idiocy to influence their votes on such a crucial matter.

But to get back to the matter at hand, I think I understand exactly what you are saying. It's no fun to be accused of something you are not guilty of. Most of us who have dared to express an opinion about anything here have some experience with this, and rarely is it deserved.

Kick and Rec.

ON EDIT: BTW, I do agree with the poster who said Obama should have renounced the views expressed by him, just to get the matter out of the way. But it is beyond trivial.

[Solon]

84. Well, I'm glad you consider bigotry and hatred, at a presidential candidate's event...

a trivial matter. :sarcasm:

What a fucking disgusting post! :puke:

[Prism]

89. If it isn't false outrage . . .

. . . then it's terribly selective outrage in too many cases for comfort.

I've said many times that I think the McClurkin incident is probably the stupidest mistake of the entire campaign season. Certainly dumber than anything Mark Penn has managed by far.

That said, the McClurkin incident was five months ago, and yet it continues to eclipse all discussion of GLBT issues on this forum. Occasionally we see a handful of posts about DOMA differences, DADT, ENDA, etc., but those conversations do not last very long before the mighty hammer of McClurkin is brought down to smash any further discussion into tiny shards of pointlessness. Rather than advancing our cause, I think it has become officially detrimental. People who might be convinced to support our rights more vigorously see McClurkin and move on, because they've already read it a billion times. Why would they revisit it?

I would respect this outrage more if I thought it was genuinely targeted at general homophobia and not selectively focused on two or three incidents, with very specific caveats, with an extensive list of qualifiers . . . and complete and total radio silence on Senator Clinton's own McClurkins. Couple it with the fact homophobic remarks made by Clinton supporters on this forum have been rarely challenged, called out, or commented upon by the posters who make sure no gay reference involving Obama passes without a few dozen McClurkin mentions, and I'm sorry but the outrage does start smelling a bit insincere.

It's about integrity and consistency. When the outrage is so narrowly tailored to conveniently fit a partisan affiliation, it's hard to take seriously. McClurkin is more important than DOMA? Than ENDA? Than federal immigration rights for binational couples? Where are *those* discussions?

Quickly buried and dropped in favor of five month old outrage. And then we'll sit here and wonder "Gee, why doesn't anyone take our issues seriously?" I don't know. Maybe because when given the choice between presenting our arguments, our lives, and our families to the people around us in an attempt to persuade them to our way of thinking or simply emoting repetitive, unproductive outrage over the course of months, many people are choosing the latter?

To paraphrase the saying, "We need less heat and more light." This McClurkin thing has a lot of the former, but less and less of the latter.

We have a unique opportunity in this election to advance our concerns and our causes in a heretofore unknown way, and we're blowing it because of a self-loathing gospel singer? Why?

[NMMNG]

91. Thank you

McClurkin is just one of the reasons that I refuse to vote for Obama, but he was the reason that I and at least one other person began taking a long, hard look at Obama and eventually decided we didn't like what we saw. And of course you're vote for Obama doesn't make you a homophobe any more than my refusal to vote for him makes me a racist.