African American Leaders on Equal Rights For Gays

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:05:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

There can be no doubt that Senator Barack Obama is a proponent of gay rights. There should be no question on that point. But in their zealous defense of their candidate regarding the McClurkin controversy, some Obama supporters have argued that a strong defense of gay rights alienates African American voters. This is not borne out by the positions taken by these African American leaders.

John Lewis:

FROM TIME to time, America comes to a crossroads. With confusion and controversy, it's hard to spot that moment. We need cool heads, warm hearts, and America's core principles to cleanse away the distractions.
We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples' freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

More.

Al Sharpton:

[S]ome high-profile black ministers continue to employ an agenda focused solely on sexually-based themes, like denying a women's right to choose an abortion or a gay couple's right to marry, to rally their congregations and drive a wedge through our people.
Not only are they speaking narrowly on the issues of gay marriage and abortion, but even as the Supreme Court is today taking on affirmative action, there has been silence from the black church.
Many African-Americans recognize the narrowness of scope of these beliefs. To that end, we held a conference -- The National Conference and Revival for Social Justice in the Black Church -- in Dallas, Texas, last week where more than 100 ministers restated and reemphasized what issues are of dire importance to the black populace as a whole.

David Dinkins:

At times ebullient, at times seemingly close to tears of joy, Mayor David N. Dinkins defied his detractors yesterday and joined a rousing dance at an outdoor celebration in Greenwich Village with the Irish lesbians and gay men he had joined in Saturday's abuse-marred St. Patrick's Day Parade.
"The behavior of some people yesterday was despicable," the Mayor declared as scores of people at the party in Sheridan Square surged around him on a springlike afternoon, chanting his name over and over and singing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."
"You did the right thing!" someone shouted.
"We all did the right thing," Mr. Dinkins responded.

Yes of course, like of all our society, there is homophobia in the African-American community. But to portray this unacceptable view as dominant in the African-American political makeup is simply false.

< Arthur Schlesinger's Nostradamus Moment | Rudy Flip-Flops on Baseball, Supports Red Sox >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

African American Leaders on Equal Rights For Gays | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Amen (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:26:29 AM EST

what they all said, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:28:28 AM EST

and it's a rare moment when i agree with al sharpton.

sen. obama needs to decide what kind of candidate, and man, he is. will he represent everyone, or will he bend a knee to intolerance, in the hopes of securing a few votes?

so far, i'm not impressed.

CP (none / 0) (#6)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:35:28 AM EST

do you not recognize the unintended irony in your comment?

To represent "everyone" in your and BTD's world we have to exclude certain people from the definition of "everyone" and redefine it to mean everyone who is a right-thinking person. Then we have to define "right-thinking person" to mean someone who agrees with you.

People denouncing intolerance who then demand intolerance are not particularly persuasive folks.


This is of course silly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:45:32 AM EST

I do not denounce intolerance per se.

But specific types of intolerance. this was precisely my point about the ACLU in the previous thread.

I'll quote a friend of mine who puts it well:

it's a perfectly logical position to adopt that intolerance is okay when directed at morally objectionable people and opinions. I largely agree with your position, but let's be honest -- your position isn't "anti-intolerance" it's a matter of separating good and bad intolerance.

You too of course are intolerant. Of me for sure. But the real question is what person would you find objectionable performing at Obama's behest for his campaign? Does anyone cross the line for you? Presumably something would.

So what we are arguing about here is where to draw the line.


Well Put BTD (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:58:52 AM EST

Sure, (none / 0) (#10)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:08:16 AM EST

you've named a couple-- David Duke, Hitler and there are countless others whom I would find giving a platform "intolerable." Anyone who advocates hatred and violence would be unacceptable to me.

The point is I find it "objectionable" (not intolerable, merely objectionable) for you or others to equate someone with such people just because he has a belief system which appears to have nothing to do with hatred and violence but with which you disagree.

Nothing to do (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST

with hatred and violence?

Is this McClurkin you speak of? Honestly, please read up more on the man.


Well, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:33:14 AM EST

if you want to provide evidence that he has said or done things indicative of advocacy of hatred and violence against gays (or any other people or groups for that matter) that would change my opinion.

Nothing in any of the links here or others I have read indicate anymore than, as other people have noted, a man whose personal traumas may have clouded his thinking and whose beliefs I find contrary to my experiences and beliefs. Summed up, all I see is a man who thinks that:

Engaging in homosexual behavior is morally wrong and contrary to God's command, but who because he himself has done it believes there is a different between being a bad person and being homosexual.

Thinks homosexual behavior is caused by a personal troubles or trauma and that the desire to do it can be eliminated through Ministry. (not a whole lot different in some respects than Freudian thought)

Thinks eliminating the desire to engage in homosexual behavior is a good thing that he has been called to promote.

Where is the hatred let alone advocacy of violence in that? Do I think he is wrong in many respects? Yes, and while I'm glad he has found a way to make himself feel better I think he is misguided in presuming that means others should follow him. but, i'm perfectly content for him to avail himself of any platform or pulpit he can find to deliver his message and let others consider it for what they think it is worth.

He should be welcomed and allowed to express himself and then Obama should have the courage to address the audience and explain how and why he believes differently than McClurkin differently and try to persuade people to agree with him but stress that even "unbridgeable" difference on one issue do not mean all the commonalities in other areas prevent people of different beliefs from working together.

The point is (none / 0) (#17)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:14:25 PM EST

Obama choosing to have someone like McClurkin representing him.

If he wants to straddle the fence competently on the issue instead of coming out clearly on the side of gay rights, he should at least have an entertainer representing him who isn't going to highlight the issue. What can he possibly be thinking? Why on earth, if there's the potential to alienate conservative religious African Americans, would he deliberately make an issue of it for himself by having McClurkin associated with him when McClurkin doesn't represent his ideas? Surely he can find an entertainer who's popular with that demographic who at least isn't in opposition to his own ideas on the issue. It doesn't make any sense at all to have someone represent you who you then have to specifically repudiate on a hot-button issue like this that with any vetting at all his campaign should have known would come up. It's like he's sabotaging his own campaign with things like this, trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth.


Revision (none / 0) (#18)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:47:14 PM EST

There's no indication at all that McClurkin "represents" Obama. In fact, it sounds like Obama and his people didn't even know that McClurkin was on the gospel tour, or the significance of McClurkin's unusual situation.

It's a real stretch to say that "this entertainer" is representing Obama. Maybe we should start vetting his waiters to make sure none of them are conflicted "ex-gays" either. We wouldn't want people to think that they are representing him, now would we?

Yes, blacks as a group are generally opposed to homosexuality. You know what else they probably don't like? Politicians, journos, and blog commenters treating them like idiots, as if dropping out of the gospel tour is going to make a difference in how Obama is going to govern on gay issues or in how gays are treated among the black community.


: That's Nuts (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:16:51 PM EST

Incompetant staff if they did not know about McClurkin, but to compare him to a waiter is absurd. McClurkin is a huge star and this is an event about Obama. If McClurkin privately was a anti-gay bigot and someone dug up a quote that he said in private that would be one thing.
McClurkin is preaching that being gay is a sin. That is part of his act and now part of Obama's act. As BTD said this is one baby that you cannot cut in half.

: The issue of "representing" (none / 0) (#20)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:36:20 PM EST

is what the controversy turns on, of course. Obviously if the "ex-gay" in question were a waiter working for the tour it wouldn't be an issue at all, as you very well know, since you point out how ridiculous it would be to make an issue of it in that case.
But picking a high-profile attractor of potential new supporters exactly because he appeals to a certain demographic is different. And it's not as if this guy hasn't been known to be a proponent of "curing" gays of their sexual orientation for years.
He was specifically chosen for who he is and who he can reach out to:

As religious conservatives gather in Washington this weekend for the "Values Voters Summit," Senator Barack Obama's campaign announced its latest effort to attract people of faith to the campaign: a gospel concert tour.
All three of the dates of the "Embrace the Change" tour are in South Carolina, where Mr. Obama is locked in battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for black voters.
Gospel acts including Mary Mary, Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Byron Cage and the Mighty Clouds of Joy are scheduled to appear.
"This is another example of how Barack Obama is defying conventional wisdom about how politics is done and giving new meaning to meeting people at the grassroots level," Joshua DuBois, the campaign's religious affairs director, said in a release. "This concert tour is going to bring new people into the political process and engage people of faith in an unprecedented way."
They can't use association with him for some things without taking on all of his other highly public associations.

Outta Touch (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:20:28 AM EST

Big time.


Getting desperate are we? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:25:37 AM EST

First you create a straw man by mischaracterizing what others are saying (by claiming that many are arguing that a strong defense of gay-rights alienates all or most African American voters rather than the reality that only a very few people have suggested that such a defense alienates some African-American voters) then in your effort to knock down your own straw man you cite three statements all made long before the current controversy that do not lend any support to any argument you have attempted to make in favor of Obama ostracizing people you don't like.

Maybe you need to stop projecting your prejudices on to others. That you think it is worth remark that not all black people think alike is revealing. The next step in your evolution is to accept that the black people who disagree with you are not necessarily any less worthy or due any less respect than those who agree with you.

: It would help you (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:29:30 AM EST

if you had a freaking clue what you were talking about.

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by squeaky on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:30:36 AM EST

You seem really outta touch.

OK, (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:58:14 AM EST

so now we have the "good intolerance" and the "bad intolerance."

As a general proposition I can find some merit in that.

The problem is that proclaiming it is OK for you to be inolerant of someone or something because you think it is bad, would seem, if we want to be fair about it, to justify other people being intolerant of someone or something because they think it is bad. the rub is that different people think different things are good and bad. Unless, of course we start from the premise it is intolerable for people to disagree with you, your clarification helps little.

Your position seems to be that it's OK for YOU to be intolerant because you are right but others shouldn't be because they are wrong. Fair enough, so now that we understand you we can take your positions with a better understanding of their genesis.

: Let's be clear (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:10:23 AM EST

Everyone gets to decide what they will be intolerant of.
Some decide to be intolerant of gays.
Others of the ACLU.
I am no relativist if that is what you mean.
I choose to support or associate myself based on my own moral compass. As you do. As everyone does.
Some have derided this approach as PC.
Interestingly enough, so long as the First Amendment is functioning, so long as we respect academic freedom, I do not think it is a threat to the Republic.
To the contrary, the willingess to accept such immoral and illegal practices as torture by our government seems to me the real threat.

You conflate a strong defense of gay rights (none / 0) (#15)
by Geekesque on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:55:12 AM EST

with kicking Donnie McClurkin off the stage.

Standing up for gay rights and challenging black homophobia has not hurt Barack Obama.

Kicking Donnie McClurkin off the tour most certainly would hurt him with black voters.

3 people? (none / 0) (#16)
by mindfulmission on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:56:34 AM EST

3 people does not mean that the "unacceptable view" is not "dominant in the African-American political makeup."

I believe that polls consistently show that African-Americans largely hold to this "unacceptable view."

I agree with you that the view is unacceptable. And I agree with you that Obama should cancel the event.

But your logic is very flawed if you believe that giving 3 quotes proves that the unacceptable view is not a dominant one.

freud also believed women (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:07:35 PM EST

were sexually passive by nature. clearly, he was wrong.

the issue decon, as you well know, but choose to ignore, isn't solely one of being intolerant of other, legitimate views, it's refusing to be tolerant of views that are antithetical to an inclusive society. mr. mcclurkin's views on homosexuality qualify as such.

he's entitled to hold them, we are entitled to call him, and sen. obama on them. i can live with that definition of "intolerant", as it would put me in the company of those who opposed hitler & stalin.

I wasn't declaring (none / 0) (#22)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:19:37 PM EST

myself a Freudian just pointing out similar beliefs are held by people other than religious people.

In any event, you still don't get it. By declaring tolerance of "legitmate views" and then proclaiming your intolerance of him you declare his views (which are from unique with him) illegitimate. Then you go further and equate him to Stalin and Hitler who were responsible for millions of deaths (and whom it took great courage to oppose when they were alive) just because you disagree with McClurkin.

I would suggest that at the point you find yourself comparing a singer to Hitler and Stalin you should reassess.

since his expre views, on the subject of (none / 0) (#24)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:07:18 AM EST

homosexuality, are the same as hitler & stalin, the comparison is valid. perhaps, you'd best go back and do some historical research, before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

historically, those who express intolerance towards homosexuals tend to also be intolerant of other groups: blacks, jews, women, etc. it seems to be a short road to violence from there.

if sen. obama doesn't like the comparison, he shouldn't have someone fronting for him who publicly expresses these views.


Good grief (none / 0) (#25)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:52:46 AM EST

You are claiming that Hitler and Stalin believed they were called by God to minister to homosexuals?

The last resort of the intolerant bigot is to demonize and dehumanize adversaries. It's not McClurkin who appears guilty of tyhat but rather yo and BTD and the others who can't accept anyone disagreeing with you.


: iow, cpinva, (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:39:41 PM EST

historically, those who express intolerance towards homosexuals tend to also be intolerant of other groups: blacks, jews, women, etc. it seems to be a short road to violence from there.
it's not intolerance of homosexuals or any other specific group that's the canary in the coal mine, but intolerance itself. As has been amply demonstrated by PTD and others of his ilk on this and the other McClurkin thread.

He sure can belt out a (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:34:26 PM EST

song.