Gay Minister Joins Obama Concert in S.C.

Source: Associated Press

In response to an uproar from gay activists, Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Thursday added a gay minister to the lineup for its weekend gospel tour.

Gay activists had criticized Obama's "Embrace the Change" tour in South Carolina because the performers included gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who says homosexuality is a choice.

Obama's campaign invited Rev. Andy Sidden, a South Carolina pastor who is openly gay, to appear on Sunday in Columbia. Obama discussed Sidden's inclusion Thursday with Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports gay rights.

In a statement, Solmonese said he thanked Obama for including Sidden but told the Illinois senator he was disappointed McClurkin will remain part of the program.


Read more: http://www.examiner.com/a-1008226~Gay_Minister_Joins_Obama_Concert_in_S_C_.html

So to speak.

seriously think this will smooth things over?

I mean, this would be like inviting someone from PETA to watch Michael Vick do his thing.

Why won't Obama cut McClurkin loose? Something is going on.

with him being out has obviously affected the performance of your team.

Sucks. :(

I doubt PETA would accept the invitation. PETA would probably tell Obama what to do with Michael Vick. Obama should just start sending the checks back. And everyone else should just stop sending them in.

McClurkin & the antigay movement which backs him strongly as a voice they can manipulate (because he sadly was molested as a child and they can claim all gay people are only gay because of molestation and must be stopped) will voice strong consternations over Obama if they booted Donnie. I've noticed a lot, when people reference hate over our people, they typically, if not always, mention male sexual acts, not female. They really hate gay men, and it's pretty obvious how disgusting it is that Obama is keeping McClurkin on the gospel tour.

Obama got himself into this (or his staff, per se) by not realizing Donnie's vile disgust and attacks on gay citizens with the goal to ELIMINATE through coercion, all gay people into being straight - as loony as that is.

sorry if my words are a bit off, I'm a bit strung out, wait, that's not a good way to put being tired.. lol oh well.

Beside the point, I know, but aside from the base pandering, that's what stood out to me in this story.

:rofl:

rather than kick someone out. We all need to stop excluding and start including.

what you wrote makes no sense.

I'm just getting tired of all the divisive bullshit in this country and on this website. I feel we all need to start finding more common ground rather than taking sides on every single issue.

While I vehemently disagree with Donnie McClurkin's views on homosexuality. If that is our only disagreement, I'd rather he were on our side where he may learn to see differently than the other side.

I think Obama's reaction shows that he knows he will need to attract a wider following to win the nomination and election.

homophobic performer on the schedule.

But if that's going to be the case, then LGBT people have every right to criticize the decision.

It's mind boggling why Obama would not nip this controversy in the bud considering it seems to be intensifying.

Are the few lousy bucks he's going to raise by keeping McClurkin worth all of this controversy and the loss of votes?

To me, it's crazy. There's not a chance in hell I'm voting for Obama (unless he's the nominee), because there's no telling what else he's going to do.

Too many red flags.


on edit: typo

and to be honest Obama is not my first choice for nominee, I'm leaning more toward Edwards. I am impressed by Obama's reaction though. I do think that Howard Dean was right about reaching out to the voters with confederate flags on their pick-up trucks.

This coming presidential election is much bigger than the gay rights issue. We need a Democratic administration. If another republican gets in the White House, we'll be fighting to keep the civil rights we have now.

would so casually disregard the civil liberties of gay people by saying there are more important matters in the upcoming election.

I guess you're at least being honest saying that you don't particularly care about equal rights, as opposed to others who pretend they are.

If you notice my sig line, you'll see a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "A right delayed is a right denied."

Secondly, Obama's words about not sharing McClurkin's homophobic views ring hollow by keeping him on the schedule. I'm pretty sure you've heard of the expression "guilt by association."

Obama, of all people, should be more sensitive about the concerns of minorities...especially when they relate to human rights.

saying this election is bigger than the gay rights issue is not disregarding the civil liberties of gay people or anyone else. It's stating the fact that we all need to get together on this or nobody will have any rights.

And don't insult me by saying I don't care about gay or human rights, you couldn't be more wrong. I am sensitive. I am heterosexual. I am proud to be a resident of the state of Massachusetts. The state where gay couples can get married. I think that is fucking great! I love it here. I love being around people in love.

Which of our Democratic candidates do you support on gay rights?

But are quick to boot your gay friends from the boat.

Do you really think you have a better chance to further gay rights in Ghouliani's boat than the Democratic nominee??

What's your objective in dividing Democrats?

ruling in favor of gay marriage came down right before the November elections, there was a lot of doom and gloom from people who said that decision was going to cost Dems the election.

And guess what happened? Dems captured both the House and the Senate.

You're the one being divisive by arguing the continued fight for equal rights will cost Democrats the presidency.

I don't see them dressing up in drag. The dude must be willing to do some pandering to gays. =) On edit and on a serious note, a vote for a democrat doesn't mean a vote for gay rights. The more clout we give to candidates who support full equality - regardless of what you think their chances of winning are - the better chances we have. How many elections are dems willing to loose because drop progressives on the left? And I think many of them are so damned fake when they hang around the homophobes and pretend to say prayers. I don't really think HRC and Obama personally care if gays get married or not - it's all an act for votes and destroys their credibility.

Obama's reaction?"

It is so simple for him to drop this guy, and he should because allowing a homophobe to remain associated with the campaign causes many gay people to lose trust in Obama.

People like myself argue, "Hmmm, if Obama thinks this stunt is so harmless, I wonder what else he would view as harmless if he were to become President?"

As for Democratic candidates, Dennis K is outstanding, but it's a long shot that he'll win the nomination.

Everyone else is not great. That's where Obama had a chance to move ahead of the pack. But he blew it.

I'd vote for Hillary over Obama, and I'd vote for Edwards over Obama. (Elizabeth Edwards and their daughter are both pro-gay marriage, so maybe that will rub off on John.)

Obama has really fucked up. Even a good number of his supporters on DU admit that.

There's no reason for it.

Dennis speaks to my personal views more than any Democratic candidate. If he ever got the momentum going, I'd be right behind him. Unfortunately, and this was hard for me because I have always voted for my beliefs rather than vote for the winner, I have to accept that this election is so important that I have to put some of my priorities second and support the candidate who can win this race.

My first post in this thread was more to acknowledge Obama's solution of bringing different views together rather than support of his positions. I think the candidate who can speak across the issues that divide us can win this race.

and look where that got me.

and you're certainly entitled to you opinion.

And I'm glad you're not homophobic.

But just keep in mind that it's very easy for heterosexuals like yourself to place other priorities ahead of gay civil liberties (when it comes to choosing a candidate), since those civil liberties don't affect you directly.

You have to understand that for many gays and lesbians who can still be fired from work for being gay and denied housing for being gay -- and of course, can't get married in all but two states -- there is no issue more important for us than basic human rights.

And we believe Democrats can fight for these rights and win the presidency.

first 2 states, then more, then all. It will happen. I believe it will happen faster by putting Democrats in office.

in office."

It will happen faster by puting the right Democrats in office.

And Obama's behavior regarding this matter is a disturbing indication that he is certainly not the right Democrat.

He is being very stubborn.

I understand how this can be deal-breaker for you.

But I do think that when I have to make a choice, the wrong Democrat is still better than a republican.

necessarily better than a moderate Republican (not that I would ever vote GOP).

But my point is, look at that imbecile, Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska who votes with the Republicans on just about everything, including making sure gay people remain second class citizens.

Nelson is against equal marriage....went so far as voting to amend the fricken precious constitution to write in that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Lots in DINO's running around.

And again, it's easy for you to say since you enjoy all of your heterosexual rights and protections.

Right Secular?

I'm speaking strictly of the coming Presidential election and the most likely nominees of our candidates. I would be willing to vote for a Democratic Presidential nominee whose does not take a strong position on gay rights over a republican.

A strong Democratic Congress and a Democratic Administration is a better opportunity to pass a gay rights bill.

... what does he GAIN? What does he GAIN by associating with such a person? Should he associate with David Duke to reach out to the racist crowd?

No, I know exactly what he is up to and after supporting him (lukewarm to be sure) I'm not interested any more.

Reaching out to the other side has its limits. He is constantly harping on religion and "hope" in an attempt to either:

1) be something he is not, out-triangulate HRC
2) be someone he is, in which case I'm not interested


I think he's making a huge mistake here, not that it really matters - he blew his chance to gain the nomination months ago.

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but anyone who makes a career-homophobe the central entertainment of his campaign stops is not likely to be a promoter of equal rights.

It's amazing to me how people are in denial about this. When the chimp took office, I figured that he would promote the interests of gas and oil above those of people and the environment. This was not rocket science or clairvoyance on my part. The chimp had a history of supporting gas and oil.

Now, tell me why I should assume that Obama is suddenly going to become pro-gay rights after he's used a career-homophobe as a campaign feature? This is a serious question.

Rather than throwing out a participant who offends some x and delights some y, Obama chose to include another participant who offends some y and delights some x. Instead of pushing out the ex-gay (anti-gay) Christian singer, he included a gay Christian leader.

This is an expansive, or inclusive, solution. It does not occur to most people any more, who think more about silencing offending viewpoints than about adding a countering viewpoint. It's the kind of solution that leads to interaction between people who have some things in common and some things not.

When that happens, there is opportunity. If the ex-gay singer had been tossed from the event, his fans would have been pissed that "teh gays" had silenced his message. Chances are, the people who were coming to hear him wouldn't have come. This way, they have the chance to hear what they came for, but also to see an example of the opposite of what they came for. There's a chance to get through to them this way. If they don't show up at all, what chance is there?

That's what the person you're arguing with was praising in the original post.

I happen to agree that such inclusive thinking is in itself admirable. I also think that equal and effective civil and human rights for all has to be the foundation of any democratic movement, and I do mean small d democracy. There can be no rule of the people, by the people, and for the people when only some of the people are treated like people. I believe that a candidate who trades rights for votes has placed the democratic process above the democratic principle. I believe that a politician who compromises this basic principle to realpolitik in order to win votes or support has failed in his or her duty as a leader.

This duty of leadership comes back to why I support an expansive, inclusive approach. This event is a mass meeting. Obama's charisma and speaking abilities work best in person. He's got a chance to influence the opponents of equal rights, to lead them in a better direction. Will Obama actually do it, or will he continue to be abandon his duty to lead toward higher principles to be led by the lowest common denominator? That remains to be seen, but a leader can't lead people who aren't there.

Let's get cop's families and cop killers on stage together for a big group hug! That'll fix everything.

Next campaign stop, let's get pedophiles and victims of pedophiles on stage together for dialogue. Big group hug! All better!

Let's put families of those killed in the camps on stage with holocaust deniers - it's sure to heal all wounds!

White supremacists and their victims kiss and make up! Film at eleven.

I realize you're being snarky and you're definitely making an argument from extremes, but even your most extreme scenarios have been done. There are organizations whose entire purpose is bringing people together across exactly the lines of separation that you describe.

To Reflect And Trust was one of them, which started out bringing together children of survivors and children of perpetrators of the Holocaust and then expanded to bringing together people across other lines of conflict in Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Israel. Here's a transcript of an interview about TRT: http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/10188/

This is a quote from the transcript:

Can you imagine the son of Martin Bormann telling his story, and someone sitting in the room is talking about their parents who'd been in Auschwitz? You can imagine the tension and emotions that were in that room. We call it "working through."

Can you imagine it? Can you imagine the bravery required to reach across that kind of gap?

Look around on that site to see approaches to conflict resolution. All parties have to first listen to all other parties to a conflict in order to understand them, and understanding of the parties to a conflict has to happen before the conflict can be peacefully resolved. Before all of that, the parties have to be present.

Another such organization is the Compassionate Listening project, based near Seattle. http://www.compassionatelistening.org/trips.html . From their history:

Although we draw on examples from our work in the field in the Middle East, our trainings focus on Compassionate Listening skill-building for use in everyday life - at the personal, professional and community level. In addition to training thousands of people in the United States, we've also held trainings in Israel, Palestine, Canada, Germany, Bosnia and Croatia. In 2007, we will begin our trainings for Israeli and Palestinian facilitators.

They have a Berlin trip planned next year. Can you imagine that, or is it too preposterous? The participants believe it will help, not hurt, to come together. Do you think you should go tell them what you told me?

This is not just something I've read on a few websites. This is the talk I walk in my regular life. My life has been completely transformed by the willingness of others to reach across gaps you think are unbridgeable.

I didn't say that reconciliation is impossible. However, such attempts need to be handled with sensitivity and moderated by people who know what they're doing. Highlighting a homophobic bigot on stage as part of a presidential campaign, and "making up for it" by hiring another entertainer - this one purportedly showing "the other side" - is not a professional or appropriate way to to approach reconciliation.

It's a slap in the face to gay people and everyone who believes in human rights.

As a gay person who believes in human rights, and as a person who believes in the value of tolerance and of law, I do not see that there needs to be a conflict here. Some will continue to believe that being gay is a choice or that being gay is inborn, and some will continue to believe that being gay is moral, immoral, or indifferent. Freedom of opinion and freedom of conscience is also a human right. So long as the equal rights of the individual are guaranteed by the law, there's no need for us all to have the same opinion.

You say "It's a slap in the face for gay people and everyone who believes in human rights". I do not think it is a slap in the face, just a bad PR step. I find including a gay minister to be an equitable measure. I do not agree with you. By your statement, that would mean that I am not gay and do not believe in human rights. Now who's speaking for whom? Perhaps I am not "really" gay, or not gay enough; perhaps I just don't believe in human rights enough, since I do not believe in them the same way you do. Perhaps I'm not a true Scotsman, either.

And believes in "separate but equal" institutions. Being afraid of granting equal rights to gays is homophobic.

IMO the only way to break the power of corporations in this country is if liberals ally themselves with socially conservative economic populists. The Libertarians may agree with us on social issues, but they are nothing but corporate lapdogs when it comes to the economy. I would rather ally with the Populists then the Libertarians.

And I'm really tired of people telling me that that's just fine. I'm tired of being told that I'm being divisive because I would like to have the same rights they have.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=26&extmode=view&extid=272

Apparently he believes wife-beaters should be included as well. Something for everyone indeed. Forget Obama.

I don't have any use for people who hate other people, regardless of who they are, just because some minister told them to. The only "curse" I can see is the curse on Obama for aligning himself with homophobic evangelical Christians. To hell with them. To hell with him.

And I don't have any use for people who who beat up other people. Especially men who beat up women. Just because they can.

And yes, I know, the African-American community matters. But, you know, I doubt many African-American women have any use for an African-American wife-beater either, even if they are homophobic and an evangelical Christian, and they probably don't have any use for a politican who aligns himself with with a wife-beater either. Disgusting. On top of the homophobe. What's next?

And, you know, the LGBT community matters as well. We all matter. But not to Obama who apparently believes it isn't important who raises the money just as long as they raise it which is one thing he shares with Hillary Clinton. Winning is all. Right? Wrong.

But go ahead and vote for him and maybe Hillary will choose him as her running mate and you can watch as Guilianinazi is elected president because most Democrats will not vote for Hillary and will not vote for Obama and simply won't vote at all.

I was arguing that folks are voting for or against Obama, not McClurkin --technically.

She's got multiple black homophobes who've endorsed her (http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/24/162436/74) as well as her very own
wife-beater endorsee: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3642937&mesg_id=3642937

Richardson's no good - he thinks homosexuality is a choice. Edwards is also not okay since he is self-admittedly queasy about gay marriage.
Kucinich wears racist hats of the Cleveland Indians. Who's left?


:eyes:

You gotta be able to think of something better than that! =)

As for who's left, well, there's Biden. I would say there's Gore but the indication seems to be that Gore will back Obama so forget Gore.

I cannot comment any further on Obama other than to say Guiliani seems more sensitive than Obama is. And more sensitive than Clinton is. That is quite scary when you think about it. I really am amazed by all of the candidates. We truly are a rainbow in this country. A rainbow cracked.

There are a lot of holocaust deniers around the country - will Obama be reaching out to them, too?

to this event, for a fee of course. I just don't like my govt choices and religions preferences mixed so I didn't go. Seems that was a good choice after all.

of the better historical events.

featuring obama-sidden against donnie and "the avenging angels"

tickets now available at the box office or online

? Keep polemics as they are?
This is change?
:shrug:

perhaps McClurkin will catch "the GAI" again and stop spouting this self-loathing homophobic bullshit?

Bringing people together who share some views but not all provides an opportunity for the exchange of ideas. Keeping them separate so they don't offend each other with the ideas they don't share can't do that.

I guess Homophobes have a point then don't they.

Then invite someone who is going to do what, Speak out about the fact that these potential supporters have a serious problem or just tell them we're all in this together but that ex-gay brother wants to see the people you support cured. I wonder if any of the homophobic pastors - don't blame me I'm just channeling the word for word condemnation of homosexuals from the Book - will leave before Rev. Sidden speaks. Or will they give him a big Bronx cheer? Or make him feel welcome with deafening silence?

The people who don't get this are the people who don't get when other people think that someone's boss calling a black woman a bitch isn't a big deal either. It's all just words that we can ignore, right? I gotta come up with a cure for adultery in the Black community. But wait, would I be welcome to talk about it by Obama's campaign? Would it be a campaign event in a working class primarily white neighborhood in SC or in a group of Black churches?

I see that you are an advocate for folks with hepatitis C. I do similar work. I just have to shake my head at some of the responses on this thread and in this forum from people claiming to be oh-so-superior at "walking the talk." Spare me.

Welcome to DU!

really tough. New things are coming. This country has to change its attitude real fast about Hepatitis C. The racism and homophobia in the field is incredible. The outright hatred of people who have the disease as if they represent all evil in the world is unbelievable. That goes for all those who served in uniform and got mass innoculations, and a lot of people who got health care through clinics where spending a lot of money on the more expensive products and techniques was not even a consideration.

Nice to meet you. This Obama thing has really gotten me on a tear. It's wrong. No excuses. No capitulations. No excuses. It's wrong. Then I look back at some of the other things the guy has done to avoid potential controversy and it send one clear message - black folks who aren't going along will just be thrown under the bus. And no one is really going to say anything but we didn't mean that to happen. Look here at what we're doing or saying here.

Either the man has control over his message or he doesn't. If you have to fall back on the this is just what some of my supporters believe you lose the cred to call yourself a leader. If B*sh can get away with it and it's clear exactly who and what he cares about, why can't a candidate be very clear about the same things? Obama sure dumped the guy who provided him spiritual guidance when he was coming up real fast when it became known he was preaching anti-semitism and anti-white messages.

.

People like you make a huge difference to us, just letting you know. There does seem to be unbelievable ignorance about HCV out there. I just took my sixth shot last night. Only 42 to go.

I'd be your doctor if you were in my part of Jersey, but I can still help a little I think. Drink water! Eat 5 or six small junk free meals a day even if you don't feel like it (like 200 to 300 calories). If you ever feel you just can't get up and do something or don't want to go outside or do anything, get support. Call a helpline. Write an e-mail. It's the drugs, not you, it's the drugs. Good, good luck! These people are great http://www.hcvadvocate.org for so many things!

I'm in MA and NJ would be kind of far for me. You sound like a great, caring DR. though. I love the advocate site too. The SX haven't been too bad so far. I'm just very tired and achy. It's starting to become a bit of a chore to eat at times but I've been good. Emotionally I can be crying one minute and laughing the next over the same inane thing. Things haven't been as bad for me as some people have it but I do have many weeks ahead of me.

Not for this reason, but for the related reason that he is a shameless whore.

There have been mant whores in the Whitehouse, but none as shameless as he....

See: GD/P for the gory details...

more than any other democratic constinuency I have ever spoken with face to face in large numbers I have found African Americans have great difficulty dealing with the thought of gay rights. I have talked to African Americans (and yes it is anecdotal) until I am blue in the face--about the similarities between them as oppressed people fighting for their rights and gays but most simply will not or cannot listen. Over and over they quote the old testament. Even when I read the very verses from the Bible that my own grandmother used to justify holding African Americans down it seems to make no difference.

There is something very fundamentally strong in the African American culture in general that is anti-gay rights. I think that in the short run dems must find a way to work around it. Obviously, in the long run, we want to develop more tolerant citizens everywhere.

What I don't understand is why Obama played this card however, it's not like dems actually need the African American vote--or he is simply trying to peal them away from Hillary.

type of bullshit on the part of either Obama or his handlers?

wow, just wow. This could read like, "some of my best friends are gay".

n/t