Because if Donnie McClurkin, is the standard, a whole lot of Black Ministers aren’t going to be acceptable as supporters.
Let’s start with where the issue probably started:
Hillary Clinton
Or perhaps Darrell Jackson, who has admirably supported hate crimes legislation, but preaches that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, and he got a big fat contract too
The real point here is that Democrats have two constituencies that often disagree with one another. One, African-Americans, compose a socially conservative demographic who are more anti-gay than the average member of the population. The GLBT community is a strong supporter of Democrats as well, but they find that many African-American religious leaders who back Democrats have offensive ideas about gay people. That’s true.
Joe Solomonese of Human Rights Campaign said this today:
“I spoke with Sen. Barack Obama today and expressed to him our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to ‘break the curse of homosexuality,’” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese said in a statement sent out moments ago.
Lots of black preachers say such things. Does that mean none of them can be associated with a Democratic Campaign?
Obama is right on most GLBT issues other than marriage by the standards of the HRC–he was a Sponsor on the ENDA at the state level in Illinois. And he, like every other Democratic politician who courts African-Americans has lots of socially conservative black preachers backing him. Why then is he singled out for this one?
And is the solution to insist on excluding such people, or is it better for candidates to build a coalition that can then dialogue on such issues?
And why aren’t other candidates hit hard on the same issue?
i am so sick and tired of the press and the blogs dumping on everything Obama does or says while saying nothing about Hillary and her problems.
i realize the press wants so very much for us to go through another 4 years with nepotism as the main need to be president but, to do daily bashing on Obama is simply going too far.
And don’t think people from all over the country, whether they support obama or not are not complaining daily and loudly. But, to no avail.
It is like Obama is held to a different standard than anyone else is.
I think that, in this case in particular, its seen as particularly galling to the glb community because this preacher is especially big on the “pray away the gay” movement. The guy is an “ex”-gay himself.
I would hope its not as much the “homosexuality is wrong” line that they are attacking obama on, as the tacit support for the pray away the gay. If its the former, then HRC should be doing some explaining. If its the latter, Obama kind of brought this on himself. He chose the wrong preacher, and now he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
at the same time, though, aravosis should come clean on Hillary’s anti-gay supporters.
There’s not one word on Hillary in there.
But I do understand how the ex-gay crap can be a little too much.
But aravosis is on a major type anti obama assault.
And perhaps this is where John doesn’t quite get that conservative black preachers believe you can pray away the gay. The only difference with McClurkin is that he was/is gay and I’m not sure that’s much different.
“…or is it better for candidates to build a coalition that can then dialogue on such issues?”
Sen. Obama has now invited minister Andy Sidden, an openly gay pastor from S. Carolina (where this event is in the first place).
If this “story” was a plant from an opponent (and Clinton makes sense, given this originally served to keep Obama at bay), it just may backfire as Obama does exactly what you suggest Larry: promote dialogue between differing constituencies which have the same common goals (namely, equality and progress).
In the prism of Iowa (and, to a degree, NH) … I don’t see how any of this impacts Obama though given basic demographics.
(h/t Christian Dem in NC)
But aravosis is on a major type anti obama assault.
So much so, he said this yesterday:
“this pattern of embracing gay-bashers and wife-beaters is starting to suggest that perhaps Obama is trying to curry favor within his own community at the expense of lots of other communities, and worse, his soul.”
Anyone here want to take a guess a what “community” he’s referrring to? Don’t worry, John’s deleted the passage and deleted any message calling him out on this. Never happened.
“His own community”???
Surely he doesn’t mean white suburbanites from Illinois that helped get him elected to the Senate? [/snark]
Ok there are 2 things that completely rile me up about this McClurkin guy.
1. He perpetuates the religious right wing myth that we homos are gay because we were raped as kids.
2. He perpetuates the religious right wing myth that being raped by a man means that man is gay and that this gayness is somehow infectious – hence the ‘cure’ rhetoric.
3. He contributes to the misery of gays by convincing hetero parents that their children can be ‘cured’ of their homosexuality – thereby creating hell on earth for gay kids and contributing to the homeless and suicide of gay youth. People really need to realize that ex-gay ‘therapy’ is child abuse and endangerment.
Ok so there are 3 reasons. But it’s all 3 of them put together that completely brings out the gays (both black and non-black gays) calling for this guys head.
The Mayberry analogy with Clinton doesn’t hold up. McClurkin has made his campaign against the “curse of homosexuality” a cause that continually puts in front of the public. Mayberry has made a few unfortunate statements – hardly the central point of his public identity. Moreover, accepting an endorsement from someone with an objectionable position is very different than putting someone who is a spokesperson for an objectionable position on a stage as a draw to obtain more support. In the latter case, Obama/McClurkin, you really are opening yourself to being perceived as equating your positions, or at least communicating that you do not find the position objectionable.
His name is MayWEATHER, not Mayberry.
I think part of this issue is framing. If McClurkin offers himself up as a supporter of Obama (which I understand is the case), why is this portrayed as Obama embracing McClurkin views? Obama’s views on LGBT issues are pretty well known, so it seems to me that the positive here is that we have a bigot (for lack of a better word) embracing the campaign of a man running on inclusiveness (not to mention, again, his position on LGBT issues). Isn’t this a positive development? What’s the saying, every journey begins with a first step.
And I’m not trying to defend McClurkin’s position, but understand why the framing (Obama embracing McClurkin) is so pervasive when the facts seem to support the opposite conclusion.
His name is MayWEATHER, not Mayberry.
Actually, Mayberry
http://www.fameoakland.org/about_fame/rev_dr_harold_mayberry.html
Sorry, I was thinking about the Mayweather flap in Nevada. You are correct.
Steve and beer goggles–I get the anger at McClurkin, but I think there’s a huge disconnect. It isn’t just that Mayberry said some things, he preaches that. That is what he truly believes as do many black Christians (and white and …).
This isn’t atypical for black churches or their ministers. I think there are a lot of implications to drawing the line at McClurkin. The prescriptions from conservative black ministers are the same–the only difference is the public acknowledgment by McClurkin that he had gay sex.
I don’t see that much of a difference between them and their message. Symbolically I can see why people react more strongly to McClurkin, but I don’t think you can really differentiate him much from Mayberry. They both profess the same faith on the issue. As does Jackson.
And if that is a standard, there are some problems that are going to occur.
“Lots of black preachers say such things. Does that mean none of them can be associated with a Democratic Campaign?”
Yes, that is what it means. Stand on stage with the occasional black preacher who does not spew bigotry, or, if you cannot, with none at all. If our only hope for electoral victory were allying with the KKK, I’d like to think that we’d gracefully accept defeat instead. Call me an idealist, I suppose.
They aren’t the KKK. They are wrong and bigoted, but they aren’t the KKK.
In this case, we have a pro-gay candidate who is getting support of people who disagree with him on this issue and he’s stating he rejects their views on this issue.
This would also open up a huge hole in black communities and Democrats. I tend to think that we do a better job by keeping them in the coalition creating that dialogue. African-Americans as a whole are socially conservative on issues like abortion and gay rights–do we not appeal to them because they are bigots? Or do we run on principle and see if they can join a coalition to elect candidates who support some of their issues, but also are socially progressive?
I don’t think people quite realize how problematic this would quickly become.
This is a big issue for Obama b/c he has an “Obama Pride” section on his site decorated with a nice “Obama Rainbow.” Hypocrite.
So what about every other Democrat with a conservative Black (or white or…) minister supporting them?
If this is the new standard, then every candidate should be included and it’s not going to go easily.
This issue IS a big deal because that person touts himself a “success” story of what can happen when you let religion dictate every aspect of your life. He represents the onslaught of Iranian-style hardcore theocracy.
Yes, the democrats have two extremely loyal constituents who dont really like each other at all. African-americans who i know off are more homophobic than the average population.. and you dont have need “mary mary” or tim hardaway to make a point about that.
But guess what… tough shit…. politics is a balancing act.. always and especially for the democrats and as a LGBT person of color I fell especially offended when he decided to not rescind that invitation.
I dont speak for my people but I hope we can get our point across.
The GLBT community does not own the democratic party… we’re not the politburo or some thing like that… but we will not be taken for granted or treated like christian conservatives were in the Bush white house… we have put too much time and effort into voting out that horrible Santorum, in bringing ourselves to chuck liebermann and Linc Chafee(despite that they were both loyal too us).
We DONT NEED AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO TELL US WHAT PARTY LOYALTY IS ALL ABOUT. We are the democratic party.
I live in Chicago and guess what, I and about 14 or so of my 20-22 year old friends campaigned for Obama to sure that Keyes would never win an election and guess what… we’re having a serious moment of disillusionment right now.
So what about every other Democrat with a conservative Black (or white or…) minister supporting them?
McClurkin is the guy that claims gays are “trying to kill our children” and is threatening a war against homosexuals. There’s being a conservative minister and then there’s being Fred Phelps-ian minister. We don’t need another Phelps.
Honestly, this manufactured scandal has revealed an unsettling amount of religious ignorance among progressives.
McClurkin’s position, that homosexuality is “sinful” and “curable”, is standard Christian doctrine, not some pecadillo specific to black churches. Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons and Episcopalians all instruct their followers that homosexual acts are sinful and that they may be permenantly repressed through prayer and counselling. The pope has referred to homosexuality as an “objective disorder” for pete’s sake! Should Obama shun His Holiness if he offers support?
And please, spare me the KKK comparisons, ok? While Christian teaching on homosexuality is outdated, it does still direct its followers to love and respect homosexuals. It does not create any qualitative difference between homosexuals and any other sinner in the church. McClurkin is much closer to Nobel Prize winner, James D. Watson; spectacularly wrong, but worth the effort to challenge and perhaps rehabilitate.
This whole scandal makes me wish that James Baldwin were still alive. (Can you imagine someone like him being on the cover of Time Magazine now, as he was _____ years ago?)
Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons and Episcopalians all instruct their followers that homosexual acts are sinful and that they may be permenantly repressed through prayer and counselling.
Actually, no. Catholics, at least, generally consider homosexuality to be innate and unchangable. That’s why Courage, the Catholic ex-gay group, doesn’t do reparative therapy, but teaches that gays should be celebate.
Does the Christian teaching to love homosexuals somehow include claiming they are out to “kill our children” and that they should have war made upon them?
====McClurkin’s position, that homosexuality is “sinful” and “curable”, is standard Christian doctrine, not some pecadillo specific to black churches. Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons and Episcopalians all instruct their followers that homosexual acts are sinful and that they may be permenantly repressed through prayer and counselling.
Not at all. Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians all have big fights over just this issue. UCC has come down that it isn’t a sin.
===Does the Christian teaching to love homosexuals somehow include claiming they are out to “kill our children” and that they should have war made upon them?
I agree it’s offensive, but it’s not uncommon in black and white churches to hear such things and lots of the people who say it are Democratic supporters. I’m okay with kicking some people to the curb, but I’m not sure how we are differentiating them.
[…] ArchPundit then made a really good point about all of this: The real point here is that Democrats have two constituencies that often disagree with one another. One, African-Americans, compose a socially conservative demographic who are more anti-gay than the average member of the population. The GLBT community is a strong supporter of Democrats as well, but they find that many African-American religious leaders who back Democrats have offensive ideas about gay people. That’s true. Lots of black preachers say such things. Does that mean none of them can be associated with a Democratic Campaign? […]