Why is Obama touring with 'ex-gay' homophobe Donnie McClurkin?

Barack Obama

Pam,  I asked the same thing in a post of my own yesterday: http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2007/10/obama-to-do-gospel-tour-with-radical.html

I truly do not know how Obama thinks this tactic is going to help him.  Most of the folks who think like McClurkin would never vote for Obama any way.  Meanwhile, he is going to be sending a very negative message to voters he has a chance of winning over.   I do not understand it.

---

by: Michael-in-Norfolk @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 17:42:47 PM CDT

I can only hope...

...that Sen. Obama doesn't know what Donnie McClurkin has said in the past about gays and lesbians.  I don't believe sharing the same stage means one shares all the same beliefs.

But, even so, I find the development of Sen. Obama sharing the stage with an ex-gay who alledgedly has said gays and lesbians are liars somewhat troubling.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 18:29:04 PM CDT

passing is a liar's card, Donnie

   Okay Donnie, when those light skinned blacks, white looking enough to pass, lied about their real selves to BENEFIT from this country, and at the same time ESCAPE the dictation of institutionalized racism, it didn't make lying liars, REAL liars....the lying had a purpose, right?

    Lying to survive a brutal situation and to accomplish more with the view from the other side, has a higher meaning, right?

However, passing....and then keeping the institution strong against your 'kind' is unforgivable, or is THAT considered the sin of cowardice and coveting?

     I mean, had the same light skinned black campaigned with his cover, to maintain Jim Crow, looked down his own narrow nose at his darker brethren with the same disdain a racist would...what DOES that make one, if not a liar?

    That is what bothers me about ex gays. They are FAUX straight. They only do what they know they wouldn't if someone wasn't looking at them. They choose public life and wonder why they aren't getting the back patting and congratulations from the gay folks.

It's because the gay folks are onto their inauthenticity. Being straight or acting straight isn't about under the covers, it's about what's in the light and before our eyes. Donne's only other option to allay suspicion on authenticity, is to have a cover of wife and kids. As IF, that's enough. For some of his public it is. No one would dare measure his pleasure....by peeking in the bedroom keyhole.

No, we have to be content with 'his word for it'. However, they posit is as "His Word for it'.

     I've given over that question before to ex gays...who are you really and who for? Because I've been straight all my life, and personally why does being heterosexual require a medal for you, and not for me?

Because it's for real, no thing of accomplishment, but state of being one has no control over. I know why someone wouldn't WANT to be gay...but apparently, questioning why it matters so much to people who aren't makes no sense.

And straight people lecturing as IF they know more about what being gay is than an actual gay person is TRULY stupid.

    Donnie, even if you were a light skinned black, you'd still be black. And you being a gay man not getting any, still makes you gay.

    Just calling them like I see em, people. And showing off one's acquired heterosexuality is like a woman who got implants showing them off as if they were hers genetically.

   Ultimately, what an ex gay is....especially an ex gay who can't handle BEING gay, is actually someone VERY weak. Too weak to be authentic and DEAL with whatever and however tough it is to make it AS a gay person.

   Ex gays are such insufferable SNOBS sometimes...and couldn't admit that they CAVED. Period.

---

by: Regan DuCasse @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 19:05:49 PM CDT

This, by Regan, is BRILLIANT:

"I've given over that question before to ex gays...who are you really and who for? Because I've been straight all my life, and personally why does being heterosexual require a medal for you, and not for me?

Because it's for real, no thing of accomplishment, but state of being one has no control over. I know why someone wouldn't WANT to be gay...but apparently, questioning why it matters so much to people who aren't makes no sense.

And straight people lecturing as IF they know more about what being gay is than an actual gay person is TRULY stupid.

    Donnie, even if you were a light skinned black, you'd still be black. And you being a gay man not getting any, still makes you gay.

    Just calling them like I see em, people. And showing off one's acquired heterosexuality is like a woman who got implants showing them off as if they were hers genetically."

---

by: Holly Capote @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 19:20:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen

I say it again - Amen!

---

by: Paul In SF @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 21:24:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I need to pay more attention

Pam wrote:

 The unmarried gospel singer and preacher at Perfecting Faith Church in New York

 And I read:

The unmarried gospel singer and preacher at *Prentending* Faith Church in New York

 

---

by: whtz @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:01:28 PM CDT

Lying everyday...

Poor old Donnie. Hell, in a way I lie to myself everyday - I keep telling myself that one day sanity will return to politics, that religious leaders will worry more about the spiritual condition of their followers than what people do in the privacy of their homes, that I might just win the Lottery if I spend one dollar...

---

by: rdwaters @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:06:42 PM CDT

McClurkin

McClurkin has the perfect act.  He has gained acceptance from the gospel crowd, and if he gets caught with his robes up he can claim relapse and ask for forgiveness, prayers and donations.  Perfect. 

---

by: nils @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:12:04 PM CDT

If they are selling Christianity...RED Flag!

nuff said...

---

by: bkmn @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:27:15 PM CDT

Thanks to Pam for covering this story.

I'm very glad to see this story was posted here.  Very sad about the story itself.  One can imagine the stink-storm that would be raised if, for example, Obama was touring with Dr. Watson who thinks all African Americans are dull-witted or with Ann Coulter who thinks all Jews need perfecting.  There wouldn't be any chorus of, "Can't we respect all points of view?"

 

It is also interesting to note that the Reverend is a Republican who supported/supports George Bush.

 

What Obama stands to gain from this -- nothing.  What he stands to lose, probably around 20% of his current support. (GLBT persons and their families and loved ones.)

 

Personally, I think this whole episode springs from a failure to properly vet the acts, I don't think Obama is actually anti-gay.  That said, failure to repute this and apologize for this in a timely manner is, indeed, anti-gay.  Perhaps it is for the best that this did happen.  It shows that Obama's lack of experience is a very real negative and that he's not hands-on enough to be the next president of the United States.

 

I say it is sad because, until today, he was my candidate of choice, but that notion has been rudely shattered for me.  I truly thought of him as a kind of hero, I needed a hero -- I know that sounds childish. For me, it's akin to watching Superman die. Now I honestly don't know who to throw my support to, and honestly, I'm starting to just not care -- this has really, really soured me on the whole shebang.  No matter what he does now, he's really screwed himself with one group or the other.

 

The only slim chance he would have is if the Rev. were to bow out on his own -- being a Republican though, what are the odds.  Perhaps this whole thing was engineered by an opponent -- we'll never know. 

---

by: Storm @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:41:31 PM CDT

Poor Donnie.

He still doesn't get it. Even if you sleep in the garage and buy all your meals at the Chevron's mini-mart, you are not a Chevy. And no amount of going without sex, or having sex you don't enjoy the way nature intended you to, will make you straight.

WTF is Obama thinking including this joker in his 'Embracing the Change' tour? I'm gonna embrace him right off my top three list if he doesn't back off of this.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 21:39:00 PM CDT

Obama v. Clinton

I'm just waiting for an Obama supporter to say they're going with Obama because Clinton will say anything to anyone.  Frankly, his religiousness is nauseating.

---

by: Robguy @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 21:56:24 PM CDT

I wrote to the Obama media team asking for an explanation

I'd encourage others who blog, to also do this.  My guess on this one, is that Obama and his staff weren't aware of McGurkin's history - but we'll see what they say.  He deserves criticism for this one.

 Eva Young

Lloydletta's Nooz 

---

by: lloydletta2 @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 22:10:37 PM CDT

Not Disappointed Here

Frankly, you cannot be disappointed by all of this if you have been paying attention to what Obama has been saying over the last year.

Obama's models for good politics are the Clintons. Just like them, he doesn't really believe in anything, and he will pretend to believe in what he thinks his audience would like to hear. That has been obvious from the start of his campaign.

---

by: Jim @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 23:28:08 PM CDT

Yet another "ex-gay" whore.

According to Donnie McClurkin, the GLBT community is compared to those who lie.  According to us Blenders (and those who also back Wayne Besen), "ex-gays" are liars.  They lie about "praying away the gayness" and saying that being gay is a "choice" and it's an "abomination to God".  Sigh.

1. People are born either gay or straight.  Logically explanation...if people aren't born gay, then they're not born straight either.

2. God thinks that some people are meant to be gay.  Unfortunately, God also thinks that some people are meant to be arrogant assholes.

---

by: Blood From Machines @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 00:02:00 AM CDT

also of interest is....

...That barackobama dot com appears to be using the MyFox Web platform.

 

 

---

by: NG @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:29:08 AM CDT

Obama is not homophobic

Obama is not there because of McClurkin.  Any Christian group in America today is going to have someone saying they were once gay.  This gives them importance and individuality amoung the floc of sheep.  Obama is there to get elected, and homophobia is a given in all states.  He is not homophobic.

Make alot of noise. Life is short.

---

by: Charley6 @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:44:19 PM CDT

if he's not,

he's got a funny way of showing solidarity with the queers.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:58:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't care whether or not he's homophobic

I care whether or not he lends comfort to the enemy.  Appearing on the same stage as an anti-gay bigot without speaking out openly and clearly against that bigotry is something he absolutely can not do.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 15:37:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, yes he is

Obama is not homophobic

Not only is one known by the company one keeps, when one lays down with dogs, he gets up with fleas.

I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not any more.

---

by: raj @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 16:36:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I give him the benefit of doubt

He may not know about McClurkin's past.  Gospel singing Christians don't talk about sex.  They are too busy feeling the air.

Make alot of noise. Life is short.

---

by: Charley6 @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 13:17:46 PM CDT

How could he not know about McClurkin?

I don't understand how Obama nor his staff could NOT know about McClurkin considering he is very prominent within the gospel community and won a Grammy.  Don't  they do their research?  It is a very bad move on Obama's part.  Is he showing his true colors?  Is he really a homophobe?  Pandering to the anti-gay crowd is just not right...................oh, it is 'right', right wing tactics.

I wrote his campaign and asked why he would be touring with this guy and also told them that currently I am undecided as to as to who I am going to support, but I now know who I will NOT support. 

---

by: tsunamiblue @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 14:06:33 PM CDT

They're all Jackasses....

The choice of a jackass as the Democratic Oarty's emblem can't have been an accident. 

The Jackass Party candidate Obama has adopted Hillary Clintons tactic of appearing with bigots like the ex gay McClurkin. She's been doing that for the last year or so and it shows in her poll numbers and her draw from Republicans and bigoted christain  women. If he's to have any chance at all Obama will have to scurry much further and faster to the right to pick up some of Clintons bigot votes. 

Clinton got her early lead becasue she and Bill Clinton eagerly supported DADT and DOMA which helped shove GLBT folk into a second class status under the law. Gay basher Pelosi and quisling Frank were doing the same when they eliminated transexuals from federal civil rights portections entirely. Now the gutted ENDA is at best a symbolic, toothless bill that will only appeal to a few niave (or rightwing) GLBT folks and to the bosses who make a mint paying lower wages to us. It's been overwhelmingly rejected by the active wing of the GLBT movement.

The major candidates of both parties either oppose samesex marriage or take the cowards way out to mollify bigots, a carry over of their decade long support for the federal DOMA which passed by lopsided bipartisan majorities of 85-24 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. Bill Clinton, this was before Monica, hastily signed it into law to "guarantee the sanctity of marriage" but really as a draw for bigoted voters in the  congression elections that occured two weeks later in the fall of '96. 

The road the Democrats and Republicans have chosen is leading them and their supporters' inescapably to the right. The superficial distinctions between the parties will diminish even further as issues like Bush's oil war in the Mideast, their common anti-labor program and their unending attempts to appeal to bigots' leads to more and more shake-ups and splintering in US politics as a whole.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 14:25:32 PM CDT

I won't deny

that there are no viable Democratic candidates that total excite me. But I am struck by an inescapable fact: The next president of the US will be one of the candidates from one of these two parties. That is just cold hard fact. In light of routine observations of the Republican clown car occupants, one thing becomes painfully clear. ANY of the Democratic candidates are better for us and our causes that ANY of the Clown Car boys. It isn't even close. The most left-leaning Repub is still well to the right of the most conservative Dem.

In light of this painfully obvious fact, I will be supporting whichever Deocratic candidate that wins the nomination. I will donate money. I will campaign. I will call people and ask them to vot. I will drive people to pollls if need be. 

I refuse to worry about whether they are the perfect candidate, because WAY too much is at stake this time around. What Obama is doing sickens me. He likely isn't going to win the nomination anyway, but if he did, I would still suppport him, based on who he would be running against.  

A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

---

by: Jen @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 17:50:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They're all Jackasses, for real....

Every election cycle some one says 'OMG, this is IT, the absolutely, most totally crucial election of all time."

I've been around for a while, and I remember the same strident jargon about LBJ, the peacemaker, and I remember losing a lover who disappeared a few kliks from Tan Son Nhut, one of 55,000 US dead and over a million Vietnamese dead.

Hillary Clilnton, Obama, Edwards and all the Republican candidates support the war in Iraq. They are the enemy. Most, like Clinton, support it's extension into Iran and arrogantly voted to demand that Iraq be divided into three US dominated colonial prefectures and that Iraq surrender it's petro chemical assets to US oil companies like Hunt Oil of (you guessed it) Texas. All the major candidates of both parties oppose samesex marriage, most support the neutering of ENDA by Pelosi/Frank, all are union busters, all oppose fair treatment for immigrant workers, youth and the aged. They are the enemy.

If you understand that all these issues - homobigotry, the war, union busting, racism, etc. are interconnected then the staement that somehow Democrats are better than Republicans can be seen for what it is - fantasy. The differences between the parties are cosmetic, not fundamental.

The solution is not to ask people to hold their noses and vote for another lesser evil. The American people are tired of having one lesser evil after another shoved down their throats. Who could blame them for boycotting elections in their tens of millions.  Protest votes are one answer but sooner or later we'll have to beat the Republican/Democrats and the people they really represent, the ruling rich. The only viable alternative we have to constant submission to the twin parties of reaction is to join and build the union led US Labor Party. It has an existing bases of millions, good politics, money, an existing apparatus, and plenty of clout. If we're in the USLP we'll be swimming in a sea of allies, not drowing in the sewer of sleaze that characterizes the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 23:24:32 PM CDT