Obama Does Not Have To Apologize For McClurkin.

[maddiejoan]

He has to apologize for himself.


'Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. 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 we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.' --Barack Obama.

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

Really, Senator? It's just as important that you listen to bigots?
Will you be giving them a seat at the LGBT rights table now?
Homophobic bigots like those of the "ex-gay" movement now will
receive an equal voice in determining my civil rights? How will
you 'convince' them of my need for equal rights when they believe
my life is merely a 'lifestyle choice'? Should the KKK have a voice in determining
the civil rights of African-Americans?

How fitting that you have invoked "Stonewall" in your new LGBT ad buy,
as you have effectively dialed back the debate to pre-1969 levels of
"Homosexuality: Sin versus Not a Sin."

[Unsane]

1. Wow, give it a fucking rest.

[xchrom]

2. nope.

[maddiejoan]

3. No I won't

I'm here.

I'm Queer.

Get Used To iT.

[KittyWampus]

74. You're queer? You said before you're trans. Anyway, you're happy to ignore or deny Hillary's

pandering to and embrace of homophobes, therefore you're subjective opinion doesn't hold much weight.

In fact, you're cheapening the GLBT issue by USING it crudely as a wedge.

[sueragingroz]

77. you really don't have a clue about the GBLT community do you?

[TankLV]

109. no he doesn't...same crap different day...

[KittyWampus]

121. I am a she. And yes I do have a clue. And yes, I also made a mistake regarding gender/sexuality

and my point still stands, there is still a huge blind spot amongst GLBT Hillary supporters who refuse to acknowledge she panders to and embraces homophobes.

[KittyWampus]

Yes, I do have a clue. And I also acknowledge my stupid mistake regarding trans/gay. That doesn't

negate the point that anyone who ignores Hillary and Bill's history of pandering to and embrace of homophobes and anti-gay legislation is on tenuous ground when attacking Obama.

[ruggerson]

78. Do you cut and paste this post into every thread on the subject?

[maddiejoan]

81. Uhm

I am trans.

I'm also queer.

Didja know ya can be both?

[KittyWampus]

113. Thanks for asking "Didja know ya can be both?" I hope you'll accept my apology should my

mistake have offended you!

You're one comment made me spend a good while figuring on it.

So forget the Democratic primary stuff- you helped one person expand their understanding of Life a bit more.

[maddiejoan]

123. apology gladly accepted

and I'm happy you can see that now :)

[yardwork]

130. Thank you! Queer is an identity.

Even "straight" people can be queer, if they so self-identify. The word "queer" encompasses people who are gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered, transsexual, and questioning - if they so self-identify.

Some gay people find the term "queer" offensive, due to its historical use as a slur against gay people. Others - like me - find it liberating to use.

I'm queer and I'm lesbian.

[Chovexani]

90. Sexual orientation != gender identity

1.) Questioning a GLBT poster's identity in an ignorant manner? Check.

2.) Use of Clinton as a diversionary tactic? Check.

3.) Accusations of exploitation of issue? Check.


BINGO! Where's my prize?


P.S.: It's "your". :)

[KittyWampus]

98. still not acknowledging Hillary and Bill's own problems with GLBT issues? Priceless

[maddiejoan]

103. I don't have any issues with Hillary on LGBT issues

That's WHY I'm supporting her.

Der.

[Chovexani]

129. This isn't about Hillary and Bill's problems with GLBT issues.

As you and the rest of the Borg collective have been told approximately 800 billion times over the last several months, but apparently Obamaberry Koolaid has something in it that kills empathy, reading comprehension, and the ability to make a coherent argument.

Plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALA BILLARY does nothing but expose you for the homophobic twelve year old you are.

[Zuiderelle]

203. That was a mighty fine post!

:headbang:

[yardwork]

125. Delete. I see the apology above. Thanks.

[NMMNG]

126. Thank you for again displaying how utterly ignorant and hateful you are.

Why don't you learn something before you continue spewing bullshit.

[Bluebear]

164. What is "ignored" saying now?

[NMMNG]

172. Oh, that Maddie is a big fat liar

Because before she said she was queer, and now she's saying she's transgender. So which is it? :crazy:


Some people just haven't boarded the clue train.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

161. you are reaaly a crying shame to liberals all over

[Maddy McCall]

173. Oh. My. God. The astounding ignorance.

:(

[Beacool]

179. You're queer? Man, that sounds so homophobic!!!

I have plenty of gay friends and I would never think of calling them "queer". It's sort of like the "n" word among blacks and the "bitch" word among women, if anyone else uses them it's inappropriate.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Yeah! Why don't you gays and gay-lovers just STFU and get cured!?!?!?!

GLBT rights are Human Rights, something Obama and DUbamas refuse to acknowledge.

[Alexander]

17. Too bad for you Obama never said that.

I guess it's easier for you to make up shit to fuel your hate.

Go right on hating. It's the only thing you're good at.

[maddiejoan]

19. He didn't say it??

:rofl:


He most certainly did!

[Unsane]

24. Really? Link?

I'd love a link to a quote where Obama says that gays should 'get cured.'

[maddiejoan]

25. Who do you think he means

when he says he 'won't close his ears'?

[Unsane]

34. Link?

Please link me to an exact quote where he says 'gays should get cured.'

Clinton sure as hell "listened to the other side" when he signed DOMA into law.

[hulklogan]

42. Nobody said Obama said 'gays should get cured'

but plenty of Senator Obama's friends have said that very thing. Whose calls will he take and whose will he let go to voicemail? I'm beginning to get a pretty good idea of the answer.

[GeorgeGist]

190. to those

who still need to be convinced


you need to open your mind a little wider.

[maddiejoan]

37. He gave them a voice in his campaign

He has indicated he will listen to them.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddiejoan]

26. and I didn't support Richardson

for that very reason.

[MethuenProgressive]

36. Barney Frank forgave Bill on his gaffe, and endorsed Bill's excellent GLBT record:

The one knock is that he once made a gaff about if being gay was a 'choice' during a debate. Barney Frank came right to his defense, and endorsed Bill's strong record on GLBT issues:
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/08/barney_frank_defends_bill_richardson.php
Barney Frank defends Bill Richardson
Filed by: Bil Browning
August 13, 2007 5:34 PM
Congressman Barney Franks has now weighed in on Bill Richardson's gaffe at the HRC/Logo Presidential Forum. The Representative released the following statement to The Bilerico Project today:

"Governor Bill Richardson's apology for the mistake he made in saying that sexual orientation is a choice did not surprise me, because he has been a strong supporter of our right to be treated fairly throughout his public career. It is especially relevant that he voted consistently on our side from the start of his Congressional career in the 1980s, when the issue of LGBT rights had far less support even from Democrats that it has today. I regret Gov. Richardson's misstatement - as I sometimes regret one or two of my own - but his error in the pressure of a debate should not detract from his very strong record in defense of equality for all Americans, including those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."

That's a darn good friend to come to your defense, eh? The Guv does have the best record on LGBT civil rights - hands down... Personally, I'm willing to forgive an obviously stupid mistake, but I've liked him since the beginning. Even I have to admit, if anything else happens it is going to look like he's never been educated on our issues or just isn't interested enough to learn, but this one I can forgive when I balance it against his record. Hell, I don't really care if the candidate understands the science behind homosexuality so much as I do what they'll do for my civil rights if they get in office. After all, Lincoln had no idea what made black people have a different skin color but it wasn't really pertinent to the idea of "equal." What do you think? Are you willing to forgive it as a slip of the tongue - realizing that most of our straight allies screw up something every now and then? Or are you still angry and distrustful?

Bill's strong record on GLBT issues:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/lgbt

Fighting for Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights for All Americans
Governor Bill Richardson has the strongest record of achievement of any Presidential candidate on civil rights issues and support for the LGBT community. He proudly stands for domestic partner rights and against discrimination of any kind. He believes all families deserve our respect no matter their race, creed or sexual orientation.

A Record of Accomplishment From Day One

In his very first legislative session after taking office in 2003 Governor Richardson fought for, passed and signed:

The first hate crimes law in New Mexico history.
Legislation extending civil rights protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
He issued an executive order to extend access to health insurance and benefits to the domestic partners of state employees.

Pushed for Domestic Partnerships in New Mexico

Earlier this year Governor Richardson called the New Mexico Legislature back into a special session to address this important issue. Unfortunately, it lost by one vote in the regular session. But Governor Richardson will bring this bill back in the 2008 session, and this time will get it passed. Additionally, with a coalition of advocates, he successfully warded off a DOMA in New Mexico – one of only a handful of states that does not have one.

A Track Record of Inclusion and Diversity

He has also appointed gay and lesbian individuals to important posts throughout his administration -- to Cabinet posts, Division Directors, and to powerful boards and commissions. He will do the same as President, leading an Administration that truly looks like America. In Fact, he has pledged that his Vice-President will be an integral member of the HIV/AIDS Commission.

An End to "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"

And as President, he will continue to get things done. He will also end the military’s disastrous, disrespectful "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. He voted against this as a Congressman and continues to oppose it today. It makes no sense to turn away and turn out well-qualified recruits, at a time when our country needs them most. There are currently an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian soldiers serving in our military. They are no less patriotic and their lives and sacrifices are no less valuable because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not immoral, asking someone to hide their identity and devaluing their sacrifice is.

A Commitment to Achieving Equal Rights Under the Law

Gay and lesbian families deserve respect, and as President, Bill Richardson will take a principled stand to fight for it. He strongly believes that we don’t need constitutional amendments designed to exclude supportive, devoted couples. We need to extend the rights due to all of us as Americans:

The right to visit a sick or dying partner in the hospital,
The right to make necessary legal and financial decisions when a partner can no longer do so,
The right to equal employment opportunity, and
The right to protection from violent prejudice.
A Pledge to Accomplish Full Equality for ALL Americans

As President, he will continue to fight for full and equal rights for all domestic partners, including gay and lesbian families.

Bill Richardson did all this in a "red state." With the right leadership, you can get these things done. He believes that by working together, we can accomplish the same on the national level. But before you cast your lot with any national candidate, you have to ask -- not just do they talk the talk -- but do they walk the walk? Can they get it done? As a Governor -- Bill Richardson gets things done.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. I'm mocking the "give it a fucking rest" attitude.

:eyes:

[hulklogan]

16. I'll never stop asking my party's nominee to show full support for my civil rights

whether that be Saint Obama or Her Holiness Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

45. Thanks for not obeying when told to "give it a fucking rest" hulk!

:thumbsup:

[Chovexani]

88. No?

:shrug:

[TankLV]

108. NO. FUCKING. WAY. this is THE deal breaker for me. FUCK obama and his defenders...

We will NOT sit down and shut up!

and McInsane has apologized for HIS actions - but we are STILL waiting for obama to do as much...

[jgraz]

154. This Obama supporter has no intention of "giving it a fucking rest"

Obama's record on gay rights is mixed at best. Personally, I'd rather he "rejected" and "denounced" McClurkin than Farrakhan.

I *hope* that Obama can *change* on this issue, and I'll be pressuring him to do so. I just don't think his ignorance on GLBT issues rises to the level of voting for an illegal war that's killed over a million people.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[cloudythescribbler]

5. Notice how McClurkin is used as a toe in the door -- for a bunch of bogus attacks on LGBT issues ...

[maddiejoan]

9. Notice for YOU and Obama

it's merely a 'political issue' that has two equal sides.

This isn't a policy difference between two opposing and equally valid outlooks.

This is Human Rights versus Bigotry.

[cloudythescribbler]

20. I don't see the LGBT issue as having 'two equal sides' either -- I trust Obama MUCH more ...

as have quite a number of gay publications, organizations, and figures cited from time to time on DU.

Like I said, there's been a recent resurgence of attacks on Obama -- and here's an example of bringing up not a new angle on an issue that has been harped on WAY beyond any plausible understanding of it, but rather another return to a faithful regular hit.

[maddiejoan]

31. Obama opened the door again

with his little pandering speech on his website and his lame ad buy in LGBT magazines.

[Unsane]

10. yep

But DOMA, DADT enabling Clinton gets a pass? It's bizarre.

[maddiejoan]

23. First

I'm supporting Hillary --not Bill.

Second -- DOMA and DADT were at least 90's solutions.

Obama will eventually take us back to pre-1969 in his effort to 'unify'.

[Unsane]

33. Government sponsored homophobia (DADT) is a solution?

Wow, you're clearly a Clinton-apologist. Because a minister, whose views Obama doesn't even share, attended ONE Obama campaign event, you're going to permanently throw him under the bus. Yet you give the Clintons, who helped enact the most regressive, unconstitutional anti-gay legislation in a generation, a pass. Un-fucking-real.

[maddiejoan]

39. What part of the OP didn't you get?

He STATES quite clearly that he will be listening to them.

[Unsane]

44. The faux outrage part.

The part where you use McClurkin as a pretext to bash your candidate's opponent. That part.

Which side was clinton listening to when he signed DOMA into law? Will Hillary rescind DOMA? What about the Clinton policy of DADT?

[maddiejoan]

46. Uhm yeah

about that.

I'm voting for HILLARY Clinton.

Hillary Clinton who will repeal DADT and remove the sections of DOMA that prevent same-sex civil-unions from having fully recognized federal rights, and yet will still protect us from the emergence of a Constitutional Ban against same-sex marriage.

I'm voting for HILLARY Clinton. Not BILL.

[Unsane]

52. Hillary and Obama's positions on GLBT issues are identical.

You wouldn't think so from your mischaracterizing OP, though.

[maddiejoan]

71. only on paper

I don't trust Obama on LGBT --and he's given me every reason NOT to trust him

[sueragingroz]

85. talk is cheap.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. How about some honest characterizations?

McClurkin was the selected MC at a series of Obama events. He says Barack personally asked him to host the events for him. He did not 'attend one', he was the sole speaker at several, at at least one event he preached against gay people specifically and by name, uncontested and unopposed.
Let's start there. This is about Obama. Get out of denial and deal with the facts of the events in regard to Obama and then we can move on to Clinton. I'll be more than glad to do so. Trust me. But we have to move on to Hillary, not Bill, and first we have to stop with the er, rather lose with the truth version of events as you present them.
One event? Wrong.
Attended? Wrong.

A discussion based on false characterizations of both sides is wothless.

[TankLV]

111. You don't know what the FUCK you're spewing about DADT...

Bill Clinton wanted to END the military's ban on gays serving in the military. PERIOD.

It was his FIRST order of business.

Look it up.

DADT is the compromise solution.

STOP SPEWING THE SHIT.

same with DOMA.

HOW DARE YOU...

[ruggerson]

176. It comes to every thread having to do with this subject

and it spews the same ignorant lies.

[sueragingroz]

181. APPLAUSE!!!!

[TankLV]

110. let us know when obama "opens a dialogue" with the KKK and other racists...

then we can BEGIN to talk...

until then, you can shove your phoney sanctimony and "concern"...

[zabet]

6. K and R!

[cali]

7. OK, I'm going to step reluctantly in here

I think Obama should apologize for McClurkin. I do NOT think he should apologize for that statement. At all. Even a little.

First of all, not every person who opposes gay marriage or civil unions or gay adoption is a lost cause. I know how people's minds can be changed. I was intensely involved in the Civil Union fight here almost 10 years ago- to the point of sinking over $2,000 dollars of my own money into that fight. And there were a lot of people who were strongly opposed to it. Now? Most Vermonters support full marriage rights for the GLBT community. There's been a sea change here over the past decade.

YOU are twisting words. Obama is not saying anywhere that he'll give a seat to bigots at the GLBT table. He's saying that he will NOT compromise. Listening to someone does not de facto mean that you do what they want. And he says "All Americans, not all bigots.

It's bullshit of the worst kind to try and pretend that the statement you quoted is anything but an utterance of strong support for the equal rights and the GLBT community.

Lastly, the comparison to the KKK is crap. Lot's of people aren't hateful, and they simply need to be educated. And damn straight it can happen. I saw it happen here.

[maddiejoan]

13. The people he wishes to listen to

will not be content that LGBT people cannot simply marry or have civil unions.

They don't want us to even BE Queer. Clearly YOU need to open YOUR ears to what the people he will "listen to" want.

As far as his statement --he says he won't compromise HIS comittment to LGBT rights.

I'm not convinced he has all that deep a commitment to begin with.

[cali]

32. Sorry, but that's not real thinking. It's speculation.

Some people don't want you to be queer and others just don't understand and are not inherently opposed to your existence or your having full rights. You have no idea who he'll be listening to and neither do I.

If Obama didn't have a deep commitment to GLBT issues, I doubt he'd be spending political capitol on it, because make no mistake, that letter your quoting from WILL be used against him big time if he's the nominee. If he didn't mean what he says, he wouldn't be saying it in every speech at every rally. If he didn't mean it, he wouldn't be speaking of it in hostile environments. If he didn't mean it, he wouldn't have a record of supporting GLBT issues.

McClurkin was a political calculation, I believe, and one I abhor. He evidently thought he could have it both ways. He does owe the GLBT community an apology for that, but for a statement where he vows that he won't compromise on GLBT issues? Absurd.

[MagsDem]

134. He's already compromised on GLBT issues

I realize that you don't understand that as a straight person, but it's "absurd" to say he hasn't compromised on GLBT issues by inviting the hate speech he did with McClurkin. And to add insult to injury, he then tries to turn it into something good about himself -- as in he's "willing to listen to other points of view."

That is where the KKK comparison comes in. His supporters totally buy into the bullshit that it is somehow NOBLE for him to listen to homophobic bigots and try to "understand" their point of view? It's that how blacks got civil rights? No, they got civil rights by demanding them and telling the bigots they were not going to be considered decent people in this country. THAT is how we get civil rights. But he wouldn't know that since he had nothing to do with the civil rights movement, and apparently isn't a very good history student either.

[MagsDem]

132. He gave the bigot a microphone...

To spew his nonsense to a huge number of voters, and you are claiming he isn't suggesting giving them a seat at the table? Sorry, but he is de facto saying that they should be heard, too. And you know what, they shouldn't. They should sit the fuck down and shut up and worry about their own lives instead of telling me mine is wrong.

And the KKK comparison is exactly apt. If Obama can't see that giving McClurkin a microphone to make those statements isn't the same to a gay person, as giving a microphone to the KKK would be for a black person, then he just doesn't get it at all. He doesn't get human rights, he doesn't get issues of basic respect and dignity. And neither do his supporters for that matter.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. kick & rec!

I wonder just how many DUbamas will rec this without reading it? :rofl:
:kick:

[maddiejoan]

14. shhhhhhhhhh

That was kind of my HOPE™

[MethuenProgressive]

29. !

"HOPE™" :rofl:

[sueragingroz]

86. seriously... I guffawed.

[Annces]

11. Yep

I think the standard-bearers for the patriarch sigh with a little relief, knowing someone is taking care of their point of view. Things may change, but we understand your need to control, - is the message being communicated.

Kucinich would never speak in this manner.

[maddiejoan]

18. Kucinich was my first choice

and if Obama is the nominee --I'm writing his name on my NY ballot in the GE.

[stevenleser]

93. Isn't Kucinich now fighting to keep his house seat?

Just curious

[Annces]

122. I am not sure

I have heard something similar to that. I think he is always defending his seat there from someone or other.

[Support the ACLU]

15. The McClurkin issue plus Obama's weak health care plan were the two factors that delayed my embrace

of Obamania

[ProSense]

22. The Houston GLBT Caucus suggests your OP is BS!

Houston GLBT Caucus Endorses Obama

by: Houston GLBT Political Caucus
Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 00:16 PM CST

( - promoted by Phillip Martin)

www.thecaucus.org

After decades of fighting for equality in the face of discrimination, the LGBT community recognizes, perhaps more profoundly than anyone, the "fierce urgency of now." We long for transformational change. We deeply desire a united country, where we can share openly and honestly with our neighbors. That is why the Houston GLBT Political Caucus is proud to join the unprecedented, diverse, hope driven coalition that is emerging across this nation to elect Senator Barack Obama President of the United States.

Despite overwhelming schedules, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had the humility to answer all of our tough questions, fulfilling the same process that every candidate, from precinct chair to U.S. Senator, had to complete in order to secure our endorsement. After engaging in these historic conversations, the Houston GLBT Political Caucus board has voted to endorse Barack Obama:

• Focused on Victory: Through our presidential screening process, Barack Obama and his campaign demonstrated that he's a strong campaigner with a compelling message and superior organization. As with every primary election, the Houston GLBT Political Caucus is intensely focused on victory. Our goal is to enact specific policies that include employment non-discrimination, judicial fairness for LGBT families, and marriage equality. We stand with Barack Obama because we feel he is best positioned to enable us to achieve these goals. We are confident in his ability to win the general election. The Caucus has endorsed over 40 progressive candidates in Harris County, and we believe that Barack Obama's nomination will help us win these crucial local races.

• Joining a Historic Coalition: The LGBT craves unity with our neighbors. Barack Obama has inspired young people all over this country, and we want to stand with next generation. Barack Obama has reached out to rural voters better than any progressive candidate in recent memory, and we are deeply gratified to finally join hands with our heart-land neighbors. Barack Obama has become the voice for immigrants, people of all races, workers, farmers, and the creative-class. From H.I.V. /AIDs to worker's rights, the LGBT community shares the needs and issues of minorities, people from every corner of this nation, and we trust Obama will deliver the change we all need.

• A President for Every American Family: The Caucus Screening committee had a very substantive conversation with Barack Obama. In his answers, Obama proved that he has a keen insight into LGBT issues, constitutional law, and civil rights. We know he is listening to us, and we trust that a President Obama will be a leader for all of America's families, including LGBT families.

[hulklogan]

27. Someone's been spiking the coffee at the Houston GLBT caucus

with kool-aid, I think.

[maddiejoan]

35. Big deal?

Why would I care what they say?

Can I have my own opinion?

[ProSense]

76. You can have your "own opinion," and I can have mine, which I stated. n/t

[maddiejoan]

79. Nope

You stated someone else's opinion as if it had relevance to my own opinion.

As if somehow --The Houston Chronicle is correct, and I am incorrect.

I have no clue what YOU'RE opinion is. I suspect you don't have one.

[Chovexani]

91. Because all queers must think alike so the straight people won't be confused

Or didn't you get the orders from HQ? :crazy:

[maddiejoan]

100. I'm a "T"

sometimes we don't get the memos until weeks later.

[boston bean]

155. Can't you just make a normal post?

I can tell it's you a mile away.

With hate spewed and the inaccuracies and downright deceitful tactics displayed in your posts and your having been called on them often, I refuse to click on any link you provide.


Now, Obama, no matter who spins or supports, is a defender of people like McClurkin and that pigs ideas. He wants them to have a seat at the table. He has said this. So just because someone else wants to compromise their own best interest, it is not a new phenomena you know, does not minimize or make null the other members feelings or grievances. So please give up this tactic.

[sueragingroz]

182. their poor choice does not make the OP bogus... that is just silly.

[slick8790]

28. Yeah. The same day Hillary apologizes for her IWR vote. Ok? n/t

[Sandaasu]

30. Yes, because ignoring people entirely is a great way to win them over.

He's right. Our opponents on this issue cannot be simply ignored, but they also, as put in that quote, _NEED_ to be convinced. Note that there isn't an option for them to simply be accepted with their current views on this. The McClurkin debacle was an error, but he's really been quite good other than that, and I'm not going to continue to hold that single mistake against him.

Then there's Hillary, with her stance on DOMA. That's enough for me to make this decision easy.

[maddiejoan]

41. Her stance on DOMA?

Do you even know what it is?

[Unsane]

61. Is it like her flip flopping stance on NAFTA?

Was she against DOMA when her husband signed it in to law? Or is it a 'recent revelation' thing?

[Sandaasu]

141. Uness it's changed since I least heard anything about it...

She still backs the language in it that prevents, in what is arguably a violation of the constitution, states from recognizing same sex marriages performed by other states.

She claims that this is because of the FMA, which is BS, to be honest. She's trying to revise history with claims that that's why Bill signed it, when the thing wasn't even introduced for the first time until 2002, and as Bill said when he signed it "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position."

The FMA won't ever pass, with or without DOMA, the support just isn't there. Hillary is just using it as an excuse to try to obscure her own bigotry.

[hulklogan]

38. Every time a McClurkin-apologist replies to posts like this

with things like "Give it up already!" or "Get the fuck over it you fucking crazy gay homosexuals!" it only reinforces in my mind that an Obama administration will have no place for GLBT Americans. Who is he going to listen to first? His most loyal supporters who try to shout down any concerns from the GLBT community? Or those people who want to be able to support him wholeheartedly but can't because their concerns are minimized and mocked at every turn?

Duh.

Big hugs to the OP.

[maddiejoan]

43. Thank you

for 'getting' my point.

[Solon]

48. They don't care for GLBT people at all...

I really hate these apologists, just had a couple yesterday who were puzzled as to why McClurkin was offensive at all.

[cali]

50. And it's reprehensible when they do but

many of us don't act as apologists for Obama about McClurkin. We condemn it full throatedly and understand why folks would choose not to vote for him in the primary. But Obama DU supporters are NOT the candidate, and many GLBT people are supporting him. Furthermore, I disagree that Obama owes an apology for the statement in the OP- strongly. That doesn't make me any less a supporter of full and equal rights for everyone.

[TankLV]

112. Thank you. YOU "get it"...

[Straight Shooter]

49. He won't apologize. He needs the religious vote more than the LGBT vote. n/t

[maddiejoan]

54. Yes apparently he does.

Which is why I find it odd --that Obama supporters get so upset that he doesn't have mine.

[izzybeans]

51. "of those who still need to be convinced"

that's operative phrase you conveniently ignore.

[Unsane]

53. Why be honest about it?

Honesty doesn't fit the OP's modus operandi (which is to use McClurkin as a pretext to bash Obama).

[izzybeans]

57. An activist sees the true value in that mode of activism.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Sorry but you are dishonest

In your posting upthread you say McClurkin is just a minister who attended one Obama event. This is far from accurate on every level. Just saying your research could be far far better. And to then have the gall to say others are dishonest, well, it is staggering really.
Attended one event? Really?

Obama used McClurkin to bash the gay community, as sole MC, host in Obama's stead, at a series of Obama campaign events.
Facts are funny, faggy things are they not?
Silence=Death Truth=Life

We are here, we are queer, go kiss Larry Kramer and learn the facts!

[Unsane]

64. You're queer and I love you.

But Obama is not the anti-gay candidate you're making him out to be.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Thanks for the love

But how about some honesty? One event? Simply attended? Just a minister?
Seriously, you are not addressing the facts, and that is exactly why we are still talking about this. Exactly.
Respect is often better than love, you know, and from strangers it is really what I like to start with. Repectfully, I have not said Obama is an anti-gay candidate. I have said he used religious based baiting against the gay community for some votes, using a well known gay bashing, Bush backing, Republican activist to do the dirty work on many occasions. Democrats do not traditionally use minority groups as strawmen, and in fact I have no memory of any Democratic candidate ever allowing for the calling out of any minority group by anyone, ever. It is not something I will accept as a tactic for my Party. Period. Not against me or anyone else. Ever.
The McClurkin apologists will be singing another tune when the Eastern Euorpean anti-gay folk get rolling, they do the 'gays and blacks' thing pretty freely. Will we be having events with preachers from those churchs as well? I sure hope not. The time to act is now.

[maddiejoan]

80. You're probably angry with me

because you hit "rec" without reading further.

[Solon]

55. Its HOW you convince people that matters...

All the McClurkin incident proved was that Obama will overlook bigotry for the sake of political expediency, that's not trying to convince the homophobes that they are wrong. Its this two faced politicking that is so atrocious.

[maddiejoan]

56. Oh?

And what's he going to do to 'convince' them?

[izzybeans]

202. I'd look up Jurgen Habermas If I were you.

He'll explain the basic political philosophy that lies behind Obama's position on this.

[NMMNG]

143. Racists need to be convinced.

Why isn't Obama constantly calling for us to listen to the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and Storm-Front?

[Recursion]

58. Yes, it is

It's just as important that you listen to bigots?

If we want them to stop being bigots, yes.

[NMMNG]

139. So when is Obama going to start listening to the racists?

Honest question that none of us have received an answer to yet.

[Recursion]

142. He has

Look at the stuff he's managed to pull off in Chicago. He essentially brought the black community and the Daley machine together.

[NMMNG]

145. Obama actually has a history of turning a deaf ear to racists

He not only refuses to listen to them, he demands they be fired from their jobs (Don Imus and John Tanner, for example) and refuses to have them on his own staff. Yet he insists that homophobes must be "reached out to", that their voices must "be heard" and worst of all he puts them on stage with a microphone as part of his campaign. Why the double standard?

[Lucinda]

59. K&R

[davidinalameda]

60. you have conveniently ignored everything Obama has said and done

keep posting crap like this

[sueragingroz]

183. no.. we paid attention to what he DID.... by allowing McClurkin to get that platform to hurl hate

[davidinalameda]

187. what did McClurkin say when he was on that platform?

what did he say

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ALL OF US POOR MISGUIDED OBAMA SUPPORTERS

or go back under your rock

[sueragingroz]

188. here's an example:

In an attempt to woo black evangelical voters, Obama announced last week that McClurkin would be among several gospel artists joining him on the tour, which starts in Charleston this weekend. McClurkin’s inclusion drew immediate criticism, with dissenters angry about the singer’s history of anti-gay remarks. He denies being on a “crusade” against homosexuality, and maintains he only offers help to “those who come to me and ask for change.” However, he hasn’t always been so temperate, as his comments about the “homosexual agenda” from 2003 demonstrate:


The gloves are off … And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose. … I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.

From Ex Gay watch

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/10/mcclurkin-controversy-escalates-with-gay-affair-allegations/

Seriously... you need to read up on this guy.

Some more ENLIGHTENING links:

http://tailrank.com/3484293/EXCLUSIVE-An-Interview-with-Donnie-McClurkin-s-Ex-Lover

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42982-2004Aug28.html

Go back under my rock.... get real!

[davidinalameda]

193. in other words, he didn't say anything while on stage?

and you're ignoring the fact, just like the rest of the bashers, that he had a gay minister appear at the same appearance

your rock is calling you

[Unsane]

62. Gay Clinton Backers Defect to Obama, Eroding Her Base

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aBcwM9pVeUpo&refer=home

[MethuenProgressive]

65. From link: "may be drifting" is speculation, not fact.

[Unsane]

66. "Obama has presented more detailed position papers on gay and lesbian issues than Clinton,''

said David Mixner, 61, a writer and activist who helped longtime friend Bill Clinton win over the gay and lesbian vote during the 1992 presidential race and who supported both of Hillary Clinton's successful Senate races in New York.

Musician Melissa Etheridge, who came out as a lesbian in 1993 at President Bill Clinton's Triangle Ball, the first ever inaugural event for gay men and lesbians, said earlier this month that she is backing Obama.

[maddiejoan]

73. You keep doing that

Why would it matter to me?

I have my own mind.

Are you saying that my opinion is not valid because some other queer folk don't agree with me?

Sorry --the LGBT community isn't a beehive.

[TankLV]

114. The Clintons are the BEST FRIENDS Gay persons have ever had...

obama panders to bigots - we KNOW these 2 FACTS...

[Unsane]

118. DOMA and DADT are your idea of friendly overtures?

Clinton's presidency saw homphobia become official government policy.

[Jamastiene]

137. Adding buddy error

"You cannot add this user to your buddy list because this user is already in your list."

Why can't you be on my buddy list twice? :pals: :hi:

[hulklogan]

68. None of the "backers" named in this article ever announced support of Hillary Clinton n/t

[maddiejoan]

72. So what?

I haven't --and there are tons more just like me.

[Beausoir]

69. Well said, maddiejoan. K&R.

[Thurston Howell III]

70. Hope to hell he's playing "smart" politics.

The reason is I don't really see Obama as boing anti-gay or a homophobe. I could be wrong but I think he's just playing "smart" politics. Remember this, there's a lot dead in the middle of the road.

[maddiejoan]

75. Might be "smart politics"

but it's not "good politics" and he's sending a clear signal to homophobes that their POV is important and acceptable.

[Thurston Howell III]

95. Agreed!

I hate it when the Dems paly that crap too!

[Milo_Bloom]

82. When Clinton apologizes for DOMA.

[maddiejoan]

84. You'll have to ask Bill about that.

I'm supporting HILLARY.

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Sooo... she isn't taking credit for any of the accomplishments.

Good to know she has completely removed that from her campaign.

Although there is the pesky problem that she has stated that she supported DOMA and would have voted for it.

When she apologizes for it, let me know.

[maddiejoan]

89. I don't think she has a damned thing to apologize for.

And claiming experience isn't the same thing as agreeing with policy.

I suggest also, that you look into the history of why DOMA was needed at that time, and I suggest you also look at what Hillary has said she will do.

It's a far more realistic, pragmatic and smart position than Obama's (who also doesn't seem to have a clue on the subject or it's history)

I am absolutely convinced Obama will wind up setting any LGBT rights back by decades. His legitimizing bigots sets a tone. They are "as important'.

He has thrown us under the bus before his Presidency has even started, and has decided to show up at the LGBT bargaining table with a weak hand.

He's doing the same thing with Healthcare too.

[Milo_Bloom]

106. Gotta love the wacky spin.

Obama has to apologize for the free speech rights of an individual.

BUT, Clinton does not have to apologize for publicly supporting and stating she would have voted for the most damaging federal law to the LGBT community.


The people following the S.S.S. Clinton get more and more silly everyday.

[Hatchling]

83. He DOESN'T have to apologize for McClurkin.

He has to denouce and reject McClurkin's support before I'll vote for him.

[jlake]

92. K&R For an excellent post!

[CyberPieHole]

94. Obama has proven to be insensitive to the members of the LGBTQ community...

Obama does not deserve their vote and support.

:kick: and rec

[TankLV]

115. Ya got that right!!!

[KLee]

96. The key in that is.....

'Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. 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 we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.' --Barack Obama.

Without listening to those people, and then trying to convince them, this country will not move forward with Gay and Lesbian Rights.

[maddiejoan]

99. Hmmm

Maybe Obama will convince me to undergo conversion therapy so I can get right with God?

That's just as important a POV to him.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddiejoan]

102. I don't think

Obama is the man I trust to do any 'convincing'.

[KLee]

104. Let me ask you this...

Why do you trust Hillary to do it? She will have to do a lot of convincing too. She can't just go trying to change the laws, she has to convince Congress and the House, that those laws should be put in place. Again changing the mindset. Then you have to take it forward, and convince the American people.

Who knows if either one of them will be able to do that? But both of them have said they are willing to try.

[maddiejoan]

107. Because I'm convinced Hillary wants it.

I'm convinced Hillary believes in it, and I'm convinced Hillary will get us there.

And I'm convinced Hillary knows the LGBT issues to a greater depth and understanding than Obama does.

I'm convinced Hillary WILL fight for it.

I'm not convinced that Obama even 'gets' it to tell you the truth.

He makes me feel like it's a plank in a party platform, that he'll try and get to --if it's politically advantageous to do so.
Because Obama has already said "it's just as important" to consider the views of religious bigots.

I could link to all manner of reasons why I think this is true --and I have many times here at DU.

It's a fruitless endeavor for me to do that once again.

The body of rhetoric from Obama on LGBT issues has not persuaded me.

The body of Hillary's has.

Yeah --I'm a Hillary supporter. So my opinion will be dismissed as biased.

But there is a reason I favor Hillary over Obama, and it's my level of trust on LGBT issues. Trust is from the heart. It's felt.

I don't trust Obama has my best interests at heart.

[KLee]

120. I get that, and I respect it...

Just because she will fight for it, doesn't mean it will happen.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted sub-thread

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

[TankLV]

117. A "CHOICE"?! A "CHOICE"?!?!

you "have friends who are..."..

SURE you do...!

you're not fooling anyone...

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terrya]

97. There is no reason why we should have to talk to the bigots.

They are the ones who have deemed me an "abomination". They are the ones who push for constitutional amendments that would codify bigotry to our demands for marriage equality. They are the ones whose words of bigotry are justified for hate crimes against GLBT people.

They are our enemies, Senator. I wish you would understand that.

[VotesForWomen]

124. Stonwall was when gay started *fighting back,* not 'compromising' and 'understanding.' O needs to ge

get a clue.

[MagsDem]

128. No kidding!

Great point.

[NMMNG]

140. Maybe MLK and Malcom X should have compromised and understood

What say ye? :shrug:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

127. Listening to fuckwads doesn't mean catering to them.

It means just that, listening. Educating too. I'd much rather educate homophobes than take them all out and shoot them, and there are plenty of homophobes who are 'phobes out of pure ignorance, not even malice--plenty whose minds can be changed without sacrificing anything for the GLBT.

[sueragingroz]

184. Then the leader of the KKK should speak at the next rally that he holds in Georgia

that makes as much sense as "educating" homophobes in the manner that he proposes.

[MagsDem]

131. Awesome post - thank you!

[NMMNG]

133. I love you, Maddie

:loveya:


People never seem to get the disconnect. Obama always wants to listen to/"reach out to" the homophobes, but never the racists or other haters. Why the double standard? Why is it that only the homophobes are so "worthy" of being heard, coddled, tolerated, etc.? I have yet to get an worthy answer to this.




Barack Obama, Do you think we're that stupid?

[MagsDem]

135. Because that equals votes for him

That's why. So much for "change"

[NMMNG]

136. It's a pity.

He could have won a lot of votes and ushered in real change by making a stand for what is right. Instead he chose to follow the same, tired path that so many of his predecessors have. It's sad and it hurts.

[Prism]

138. The problem here is the two divergent views of GLBT advancement

There are some people who believe that the path to GLBT equality is a glorious battle on the field, if they just scream loudly enough, march enough, force their views enough, don their armor and gallop forward with a sword, that somehow they'll win the day and we shall all write epic poems in honor of their vanquishing the homophobic menace.

There are other people, like myself, who see GLBT equality more as guerrilla warfare. It's not one huge fight, but a million individual skirmishes, going from house to house, family to family, individual to individual.

It *is* important to listen to bigots. In my own experience, I had to listen very, very closely to what homophobic friends and family said and thought, and then I had to take that knowledge and approach them individually over time, pick and choose the best methods and words to convince them that GLBTs are deserving of rights and dignity the same as any other citizen. I had to listen very closely to how their religion was playing a role in that mindset. And only through endless conversation and the example of my own life was able to change many of their minds.

That is Obama's point. It is a good point. It is the point that is going to achieve our equality.

The fact of the matter is that one, single teenager coming out safely, honestly, and living his or her life in the open is more powerful and more transcendent and more valuable than all of the McClurkin bitching on this forum combined.

Obama gets that. The younger generation of GLBTs get that.

Unfortunately, many of those marinated in old school activism do *not* get that. They do not understand that the slow creep towards equality is because of individuals and conversations and persuasion and demonstrating our dignity through patience, example, dialogue, and openness.

Unfortunately, some people think GLBT rights advance only through marching and shouting and fighting.

In the 80s and 90s, that worked. That visibility was needed. We needed our foot in the national door. Now it's a new world, a new fight, and our advancement requires a new approach.

To me, with Obama going into religious communities and speaking on our behalf, he understands this kind of fight. It's a damn shame so many GLBTs do not. They'd rather shout than persuade.

Shout away, but don't expect to get very far. And when you're frustrated no one's listening, continue to think they're the problem, that your approach certainly has nothing to do with it. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." People *are* used to it. This McClurkin crap is posted every single day. Now that they're used to it, what was your next move? Or, like Clinton, is there no Plan B. Nothing planned out beyond "Have I gotten your attention?"

One scared, confused, and terribly brave sixteen year old is right now, as we speak, doing more than any of us to change the way Americans think about gay people, and all the garment-rending about McClurkin is less than nothing in the face of it.

[Solon]

144. You really have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about...

McClurkin would tell that sixteen year old that they are cursed, broken, sick, whatever, and try to "cure" them. He's dangerous, period.

[Prism]

147. Which is why he should be countered with reason

Instead of screaming. Which is why we need to pour more of our energy into things like GSA's and youth shelters. Which is why we must work hard through dialogue with religious social conservatives to persuade them of the danger and damage inherent in the anti-gay mindset, to pierce ignorance with the light of truth instead of an emotional bonfire that threatens to leave everything with a good scorching - if not burn it all down.

Given the amount of "fucks" in your well-reasoned response, I would probably peg you as the kind of person who believes gay equality is nothing less than a death struggle against religious bigots, for verily they are your mortal enemy.

That isn't my approach. That isn't Obama's approach. Dialogue, engagement, persuasion. Heck, look at his campaign. He's whipping ass while barely raising his voice.

Volume does not equal strength. Whoever gave you the idea that it was?

I did not convince my religiously conservative family to accept GLBTs by screaming in their face. In fact, I know of no one who has been brought over to our side by the sheer force of gay will. Do you? Have you ever yelled at someone for an hour and then had them magically go, "You're right. What a fool I've been. It all makes sense now."

Outrage might feel good - or at least it might alleviate some of the hurt many of us have been dealt by virtue of being who we are. But much of the time it's wasted energy, energy that could be more efficiently directed to bring about the change we desire.

[Solon]

150. The problem is that Obama isn't doing that...

Hell, Hillary, curse her name, was the first presidential candidate to mention the plight of GLBT teens and that she would help support them.

Obama gave McClurkin the stage to pontificate on his lies and bigotry, practically unopposed. That's damn near unforgivable, period.

[Prism]

153. I'm not discussing the McClurkin incident

I think McClurkin was wrong and a mistake and have stated so many, many times.

I'm addressing the attitude in the OP that we should not give an ear to bigots, include them in dialogue, and try to use engagement as a means to bringing them around to our point of view.

You know, the sentiment seems like "How can you talk to these people?! How dare you!" Well, the answer to that is: "Because we must."

(The other strategy is to ignore them entirely until they die off and are replaced by the more tolerant younger generations, but I'm really quite unwilling to wait several decades for the kind of equality we could achieve in one if we were only a little smarter about it).

[Solon]

156. But what would be accomplished by engaging in dialog with these people?

We still haven't even engaged in dialog with racists yet, and racism has decreased over the years regardless of that.

Yet how was progress in civil rights for Africans Americans achieved? A combination of direct action and steamrolling over the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act, along with litigation. The same will occur for GLBT rights as well, a combination of all three will have to occur to achieve relatively rapid progress. In the personal arena, yes you should have dialog with bigots, if they can be moved, but in the political arena, its a different thing altogether.

If our politicians, or courts, or whatever, had waited until a majority of the country was comfortable with interracial marriage, then it wouldn't have been legal until the 1990s.

What we need are laws to protect GLBT teens, outlaw ex-gay camps, and make parents liable for children they kick out of their homes before age of majority(18) would be a start, and that's just for teens. Pack the courts with gay friendly judges, make sure the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution is enforced when it comes to Same Sex Marriages, etc.

You don't need people like McClurkin in the fold to accomplish this stuff, and if they want to support you on other things, but not these, then steamroll over them. Their bigotry should not stand in the way of civil rights.

[Prism]

163. Not to get into it too deeply . . .

. . . but a comparison with black civil rights doesn't quite, quite work when it comes to gay issues. For a variety of reasons that would take a lot longer to hash out than is decent for one forum (plus I have to get ready for a date in a little bit *fingers crossed*).

Put plainly, GLBTers do not have the built-in support that African-Americans do. You know, if you're black, you're generally born into a black family and generally raised in the black community (that is, of course, changing, but we're talking the 50s and 60s). There was a core, unmoving, unwavering "home" in that movement. Not so with us. In some cases our families can be the greatest detriment to our dignity, equality, and well-being. Sometimes our communities are actively hostile to us. Oftentimes being GLBT means being alone in our struggle until we're adults.

So once we're out there and fully realized as individuals, we've had to stitch together a support system that isn't built-in the way it was for black families and black communities. We also don't have the kind of visibility that skin color automatically grants in consciousness. One of the most powerful things to change the tide of American minds in the 1960s was television cameras showing the hoses turned on blacks, showing bodies hanging from the trees, showing dogs being used to cruelly torment and oppress their fellow citizens.

There was a power in that movement at that time that we do not possess, because we are so easily made invisible. On the flip side, we do not have to deal with segregation in the fundamental way blacks did. I don't mean marriage, but lunch counters and bathrooms and schools and water fountains. Which is why I say, coming out, living openly and honestly is the most powerful thing anyone can do to advance our equality in this country.

Laws are certainly a part of the larger battle to achieve equality. But we also need to create a core of support. Through our families, through our communities, through our religions. That groundwork is important not only to achieve laws, but to actually defeat the bigotry that brings legal discrimination into being. And in this country, in this time, in this culture, religion and bigotry are powerful forces that need to be engaged and confronted.

Your ideas and my ideas are not an either/or supposition. They can work in tandem towards the larger and final goal. But dismissing my and Obama's ideas out of hand is to discard a powerful tool that can be used at the core of the work we need to do to tie all the disparate social and political elements we'll need together.

Which is why I say dismissing Obama's approach (disinclusive of the McClurkin mistake) is counterproductive.

I realize I haven't wholly addressed your points, but I'm crunched for time. Hopefully we can pick this up again.

[sueragingroz]

186. you can't discuss obama's views without discussiong McClurkin

end stop.

[maddiejoan]

146. On this

"Obama gets that. The younger generation of GLBTs get that."

Then with all due respect, Obama and the younger generation don't understand jack-shit.

Obama is dialing back the debate to before his younger generation was even born.

[Prism]

148. You've asserted this several times.

That somehow Obama is bringing gay rights back into a pre-Stonewall age.

But you've never actually fleshed out that assertion.

How is he doing that?

[maddiejoan]

151. It's in the OP

as fleshed out as it needs to be.

Before Obama's campaign, the debate in political circles was "Should LGBT individuals be permitted to marry and should they be afforded protection from discrimination at the workplace"

NOW --because of Obama's campaign we are back to debating in political circles whether or not Homosexuality is a sin.

Why is religious condemnation even a part of a political campaign?

Why should their narrow minded, archaic views of sexuality even be a part of a secular progressive political campaign?

And their view is "just as important"?

Obama slammed the Bible on the LGBT rights table and has given it equal value to the US Constitution.

You don't see how bad that is?

[Prism]

158. Again, it depends how you view the debate.

"Why is religious condemnation even a part of a political campaign?"

Because it is a part of our culture. You can wish it away, hope it never makes the evening news, desire to live in a world where you never have to hear a single word about the religious goings-on in our country. However, that doesn't make it actually vanish. Pulpits are still going to be used to spread homophobia, anti-gay "therapy" will still be promoted out of "love", and religious Americans everywhere are still going to be around the dinner table discussing what their priests, rabbis, and ministers have to say.

The only way to deal with that sort of thing is to confront it head-on, upfront, in the sunlight.

If 2004 and the flood of anti-gay amendments proved anything, it is that we have a lot of work to do in defeating bigotry in this country. How can you fight and defeat a problem and topic you won't acknowledge, don't want to hear discussed, and wish would just go away? That's why I admire Obama for going into the churches and saying precisely what he does. Because *someone* has to do it. We haven't been doing a good enough job of it. Obviously.

"And their view is "just as important"?"

Change the wording around a little. Their views aren't just as important in that they have equality of merit. However, they are just as relevant to gay equality in that they are a powerful - and currently stronger - force in a culture we need to bring to our side in order to achieve our equality.

The Bible does not have equal importance to the Constitution in this debate, but it does have equal relevance in political debate in many parts of America - especially the parts most resistant to giving us the rights we're guaranteed.

It sounds a bit like you simply wish we didn't have to deal with all of the religious bigotry in this country. That we shouldn't have to deal with it. In that sentiment, I'm in complete agreement with you.

But it's there, it does need dealing with. So the question is how? "Ignore it and hope it'll go away" isn't an option for me.

[maddiejoan]

159. and legitimizing bigotry

isn't an option for me.

[Prism]

166. It's not in your power to dictate

Racism was deligitimized once a critical mass of Americans decided it was no longer acceptable. We have not reached that same critical mass with homophobia. We don't yet have the power to say "This is unacceptable, it must vanish immediately." Someday we will have that power.

But in the here and now, we have to deal with what is in front of us. We are not in a position to simply ignore those voices, to act as if they are below response or consideration.

It is that thinking that aided the creation of the state amendments. IMO.

[maddiejoan]

169. It's in my power

not to support a candidate that legitimizes bigotry.

Obama has said he has opened his ears to those who seek to destroy me. In doing so he has closed his ears to me.

It's in my power not to simply let a candidate take my vote for granted.
Maybe when a Presidential candidate realizes they need the support of people like me, then it finally WILL hit critical mass.

If Hillary isn't the nominee, I'll write my first choice for President on my NY ballot.

Dennis Kucinich.

[Dark]

167. Their view IS just as important. Their vote counts just as much as yours.

n/t

[maddiejoan]

174. And there's the problem

and what you don't get.

Obama doesn't seem to get it either.

[NMMNG]

149. If the people marching, shouting and fighting are so wrong about it all,

Then why did Obama cite the Stonewall Riots in his ads?

[Prism]

152. You're only reading half the sentiment

I didn't say the marching and protesting was wrong. In fact, I said the opposite. The marching and protesting was necessary at that time to vault the required visibility of gay equality to the national stage. So it was at one point a necessary function and tactic - if not the most important. The people who came out back then deserve a great deal of our gratitude, because we know it was not easy to do it in that time in American culture.

However, now that we have visibility, now that we are gaining in acceptance, do we continue on in that manner or do we pivot and adjust to our current reality?

In my mind, this lack of adaptation, this unwillingness to engage and challenge bigotry is now detrimental to our cause. We have visibility, we are gaining in acceptance, but I think we're still struggling to figure out what to do with those gains. I think we've converted just about as many people as we're going to through the old tactics. How do we convince the rest? How do we win the harder cases? Marching? That's really not going to do it.

Education is the key, and you cannot educate someone if you're completely unwilling to even speak to them. That sentiment is the one I'm strongly objecting to, the one I find counterproductive to our cause, the one that I see reflected in a lot of these McClurkin threads.

[NMMNG]

157. You don't "educate" bigots by putting one bigot on stage

to preach bigotry to other bigots. That's what the McClurkin thing was--a bigot preaching hatred to other bigots (not the "reaching out" some people are trying to claim it was) .

I'm all for actually educating bigots who are open to learning, and showing them the error of their ways. But if their minds are completely closed and they want nothing but to spread their hatred to others then there is nothing to do but what we do with others of their kind (the KKK, Storm-Front, Skinheads, Aryan Nation, etc). We tell them that their bigotry is unacceptable, we refuse to allow their bigotry any voice in policy making, and ultimately we relegate them to the fringe of society. It's high time we stop apologizing for and condoning homophobes just because they cloak their bigotry in religion and the Bible/Koran and homophobia is still considered acceptable by a too much of society.

[Prism]

Two quick points

1. I'm not discussing McClurkin being on stage. I'm addressing the point in the OP in regards to Obama's message that we have to listen to what the bigots are saying if we're going to persuade them over to our side.

2. The reason the KKK, Stormfront, etc. are so deligitimized is because racism as a tool has been so thoroughly rejected by American culture. Being able to dismiss them as unfit for dialogue is a power that only comes once the culture is wholly on your side in that argument. It's the tactic used once a society overwhelming rejects that mindset to the point that such attitudes are considered radical and fringe.

As we know, religiously conservative homophobia is not radical or fringe in our country. Tens of millions of people subscribe to it. So the power to simply dismiss it is not ours. Instead, we have to engage and confront it.

Someday we'll be able to dismiss it off-handedly. But that day is not yet here.

[NMMNG]

171. We've been listening to the bigots for how long?

It's time to tell them that bigotry, even couched in terms of "deeply held religious beliefs" is wrong, and act on that assertion. Until we do that we'll be forever under their thumbs. They have only the power we allow them to have and keep.

The racists weren't thrown out of power because people sat back and waited for them to die out of their own volition. They were thrown out of power by people who fought back and told them that their hatred would no longer be tolerated. It's high time we do the same to the homophobes.

“The barometer of where one is on human-rights questions is no longer the black community, it’s the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."

Bayard Rustin

• Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job. For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.

• I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation.

• I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."


• Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.

Coretta Scott King

[sueragingroz]

185. Can I please have some equality? Pretty please?

Poof! The magic wand just gave me some equality!

[jgraz]

160. Hey maddie -- you know I think Obama sucks on this issue

however... (you knew that was coming) I don't think he's saying he's going to give bigots like Bill Donohue a seat at the table.

The most charitable interpretation is simply that he won't tell the bigots to fuck off without first trying to convince them. We've seen in the past months that Obama has no problem punching back when he feels someone is out of line. I expect he'll try to include people in the dialogue in order to persuade them, and cut them out if they show no ability to accept new ideas.

One *hope*ful thing to consider is that Obama shows every indication that he's willing to listen to our side of this issue as well. The only people who need to fuck off are those telling the LGBT community to sit down and shut up for yet another election cycle.

[maddiejoan]

201. Thanks for the post. jgraz

One of the few, well thought out refutations of my OP by the way.

I do hope you are correct.

[mistertrickster]

162. Guilt by association. Sometimes to forge a coalition, you have to work with imperfect people.

Feel free not to vote for Obama.

the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Bluebear]

165. 'Sometimes to forge a coalition, you have to work with imperfect people' Talk about an APOLOGIST.

[NMMNG]

168. Let's go forge a coalition with some white supremacists

Hey, they're just imperfect people. :sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

191. It's important to reach out to ALL views.

Otherwise we're just as bad as the Republicans. :sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

192. They're just misguided

And they'll never learn the error of their ways unless we reach out to them.

[greguganus]

170. Nevermind she has her hand in thousands of war deaths. n/t

[sueragingroz]

189. nice relevant post.

[NMMNG]

175. I just have to say maddiejoan

If nothing else you brought the homophobe apologists out in force with this thread. It just goes to prove how very un-progressive this forum is, and how very uphill our battle is:-(

[jackson_dem]

177. Great post

:thumbsup:

[okasha]

178. Got it in one.

There's a reason it isn't LGBTH.

[Barack_America]

180. Hillary has NEVER suggested such a thing!...

Errr...scratch that, looks like she has.

Yet for all the notice of Clinton's centrist tone and morality-speak on the national stage, her New York constituents largely missed the senator's real debut as a God-fearing Middle American. It came in a January 19 speech in Boston that made headlines there, with Clinton appearing in a Globe photograph alongside the host, Reverend Eugene Rivers III, one of the state's most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage.

Clinton had traveled there to attend a benefit for Rivers's youth-outreach program, known as the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation, which promotes faith-based solutions to gang violence and urban crime. At the event, attended by many of the city's prominent black ministers, the senator celebrated the foundation's street ministry to at-risk kids. But she also used the opportunity to demonstrate her commitment to a key issue in the culture wars, the role of faith in addressing social ills like poverty and hunger. Listen to her praise faith-based initiatives:

"There is a lot that needs to be done, and there is an unnecessary debate in our country about how to do it. It does not matter whether it is inspired by faith, inspired by obligation, inspired by family, or inspired by threat of a federal indictment. The work is what is important. . . . And there is no contradiction between faith based, community based, faith inspired, government inspired—we are all in this together, and we need to provide support for the ongoing work."

Clinton didn't stop with that. She invoked God's name a half-dozen times—thanking God for the Ten Point's faithful soldiers, commending those who "see God at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left-behind of our children." And she made plain her religious credentials:

"People often ask me whether I'm a praying person, and I say I was lucky enough to be raised in a praying family, and learned to say my prayers as a very young child, and remembered seeing my late father by the side of his bed until his very last days saying his prayers. So I was fortunate. But I also say that had I not been a praying person, that after I'd been in the White House for a few months, I would have become a praying person."

This one is a gem too:

She told an Albany crowd on January 24 that abortion represents "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and singled out "religious and moral values" as an antidote to teenage sex.

(just 'cause I know so many of y'all are up in arms over Obama's "prayerful" remark.)


All in all, a highly interesting read:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0509,lombardi1,61604,6.html/1

[Recursion]

194. Sin vs. not sin

How fitting that you have invoked "Stonewall" in your new LGBT ad buy,
as you have effectively dialed back the debate to pre-1969 levels of
"Homosexuality: Sin versus Not a Sin."

Well, the problem is that on a national level that's still exactly where the debate is for a lot of people, and that's something we've not yet owned up to as a country.

[NMMNG]

195. The problem is

We're still giving credence to those who claim it is a "sin", and letting them frame the debate and deny LGBT people equal rights. We stopped doing that for people who use(d) their religion to justify bigotry toward blacks and other people ages ago. It's time we do the same for those who use it to justify bigotry toward LGBTs.

[Recursion]

196. We've tried to sail past them

And they didn't catch the tow rope.

I'm not defending Obama's McClurkin (sp?) thing; I think it's the most serious error in judgment I've seen from him so far.

I just don't know the answer. We can't keep pretending that half of the country is going to magically see the light if we don't reach out to them.

[NMMNG]

197. There is a hard core contingent

that is bound and determined to not give up their bigotry no matter what. No matter what we do they are not going to change their minds, so it's useless to even try.

Another faction will change if they're given time, but it's not going to happen if things go on as they are, if nothing changes and the hate that's out there is allowed to continue breeding. If equal rights for LGBTs are not implemented and the laws against them continue to be put in place there is no reason for the bigots to give way and learn to deal with reality. They'll just keep on as they have been, hating and indoctrinating more haters.

We need to put the laws in place and teach the bigots that they need to deal with it. Those who want to remain stuck in the dark ages will do so, but others will adapt. Absolutely nothing will happen if we keep sitting around waiting for the bigots to just come around.

[Recursion]

198. Oh, I've written off that hard core

I'm thinking of people like my grandmother, "some of whose best friends are gay", ie, doesn't have a particular problem with queer people she knows, but on a fundamental level thinks there's something "wrong" with it (my own thought is, "wrong can be really fun", but that's a whole nother issue :) ), and on a very fundamental level thinks marriage is something that is only between one man and one woman for the purpose of forming a reproductive nuclear family.

Simply pointing out to her "you're a bigot", while true, isn't going to get us anywhere. She has fears and concerns that, as wrong as they are, she won't let go of if she thinks nobody is listening to them.

Again, don't know the answer.

[NMMNG]

199. One doesn't have to actually say "you're a bigot"

But what's wrong with "People deserve the same rights and protections under the law"? Nobody can reasonably argue against that because they themselves want the same rights and protections as everybody else. (Of course that's where "reasonably" comes in and the issues begin, but if we'd keep religion out of government that would stop half of the problems right there IMO.)

[maddiejoan]

200. I don't CARE if they "see the light"

Why would anyone care? Let them live in ignorance, while allowing me to enjoy my inherent rights.

Equal Rights for all isn't a debate for this country.

As long as bigotry is given a legit status in the national dialogue --Equal Rights for all will never come.

[NMMNG]

204. Amen to that

Does anybody care if the KKK/Neo-Nazis/Storm-Front "see the light"? No. We let them wallow in their chosen ignorance while we dictate that black people, Jewish people, Hispanics, etc. all have the same rights and protections under the law as everybody else. So why the hell are we hemming and hawing about LGBTs? I am sick to death of this nonsense where the bigots are being given consideration because they cloak their hatred under the guise of "deeply held religious beliefs". NO MORE.




What we need are some political candidates with actual spines and true ethics. Too bad they've already dropped out of the race or never were in it to begin with.