If you want the whole anti gay minister thing to go away

[dsc]

then maybe you need to honestly listen to some of us. Gays have to make judgements all the time about what attitude a person is likely to have toward gays. Sometimes we have an abundance of information because they are are parents or children, or neighbors etc. Sometimes we have very little information because they are the woman across the table from us on our job interview, or the man who is considering renting us an apartment. Usually we become quite adept at these, often snap, judgements because if we aren't we might get our ass kicked, be denied a job we want, or lose the love and support of a family member.

We have to make a similar judgement about Presidential candidates. My first choice was Richardson. First, his stated views on gay rights were very good (no marriage equality but yes to everything else). But beyond that he had an actual record of delivering and attempting to deliver, on his promisies. He got an ENDA style law passed and he called a special session to try to get, unsuccessfully sadly, a domestic partnership bill passed. That actual experience trumped everything else for me in regards to gay rights. I also felt, before I saw his campaigning, that his resume and region was our best bet to win. Even before he dropped out, I switched.

To judge the rest of the candidates I looked to promises made, records, and evidence that the candidate would be likely to really care about gay issues. Under promises made, they are basicly all the same (and Clinton and Obama are nearly identical) so that was a tie (only Kucinich and Gravel were actually better). Under records, they all were about the same. Voted for the right stuff, rarely took a public profile, but solid pro gay records. There were some exceptions, Clinton was high profile in her fight to derail the anti gay amendment, she marched in gay pride, she also, marched in St Paddy's day(bad), she was not so great about DOMA, Obama did speak at the convention about gay Americans. Here I gave a very slight edge to Clinton with Obama a narrow second, and no one else rated. Finally I look at their associates. Here Clinton has it all over everyone. She has for decades chosen to associate herself with gays. A lesbian babysat her child, her media spokeman was gay, her father was cared for by gay neighbors. Obama has shown no evidence whatsoever of associating himself with gays and has shown a disturbing pattern of hanging around anti gay ministers. Hillary has had some misteps here too but they aren't as close of associations and her positive associations help greatly. Of the others only Edwards' wife was helpful. After looking at all of the above and considering other issues, I wound up an Edwards supporter for about 3 weeks (he dropped out). Now I am a somewhat relucant Clinton supporter.



I am not claiming my judgement is perfect. I am not claiming I may not be wrong. I sincerely hope, my misgivings about Obama turn out to be wrong. But after careful consideration of the available evidence, I just don't think Obama gets it. I don't think he would actively take away my rights or veto pro gay legislation. I just think he won't do much to ensure there is pro gay legislation. Of the remaining two candidates I feel Hillary has surrounded herself with people who will tell her now is the time while Obama has surrounded himself with people who think we are angling for special rights.

There is a way to fix this. First, as his supporters you can stop with the we are a bunch of faux gays who are really Hillary supporters. You can actually listen to a group of people who are used to making these kinds of judgements on a daily basis. Second, those who have the candidate's ear can tell him to do the following:

Make specific, measurable promises to the gay community. My suggestions would be within the first 100 days we will end DADT, sign ENDA, and sign anti hate crimes legislation. Even if only one made the 100 day cut with promise of quick action on the other two, that would be good. If Obama has prominate gay associations, bring them to the fore. We know from our personal experience that when people know gay people, they are vastly more likely to care about gay people.

I still hold out hope for Hillary but know that it is a very long shot at this point. I offer this advice to what I think will be our nominee and his supporters. I know some of you will either ignore this (either electronically or by decision) or think this is the idle writings of a faux gay, but it really isn't. I take these judgements seriously. They are often the difference between ending up employed at a homophobic hell hole or being out at work.

Finally, I would like to close with two times my judgement failed me on this. In 1992, I almost voted for Perot. I was completely unconvinced that Clinton gave a crap about gays and that was only cemented by his naming of Gore. Perot then came out and said gays were unfit for his cabinet and that changed my mind. Clinton, while not perfect by any means, did fight for gay rights both publicly and privately and as for Gore he just endorsed marriage equality. This year there was one person at work I feared more than anyother in regards to my being gay. My department chair is pentacostal holiness and deeply religious. I thought she would be appalled. While we haven't discussed it, nothing has changed in our relationship. The first one, shows why I am for Clinton now, the second shows why I think the Obama thing is possible to be fixed.

[bunnies]

1. The anti-gay minister "thing" isnt even a "thing".

Most heads of religions are anti-gay. And its not Obamas fault.

[dsc]

5. that is baldly false

his own denomination is more pro gay than either he or Hillary. Nearly all denomiations have some friendly churches and some denominations are completely open and affirming.

[bunnies]

13. Other than UU... who is openly affirming?

I'm asking you seriously. The Unitarian church is the only one I know of.

And are you seriously arguing that the majority of religions are pro-gay?! If that were the case... gay marriage would be legal!

[dsc]

18. The UCC is for one

Reform Judaism is another.

[bunnies]

20. A good start but still not the majority. nt

[Terran]

52. One thing you should know:

Obama's church is UCC, and UCC is, in its entirety, very gay-friendly.

So I also, as an Obama supporter, am not happy with this apparently close association with someone who's so out-there as anti-gay. A lot of Baptist African-American preachers share those views but they don't get so political about them. But I'm basically choosing, as a gay man, to hold my nose on this one. I guess nobody's perfect, and I suspect it has all been done for political reasons and doesn't reflect his personal feelings. Certainly it appears that Clintion and McCain have major issues along these same lines.

[cbayer]

71. There are lots

including the one I was raised in (Disciples of Christ).

We have allowed fundamentalists to define what the church is in this country. They do not represent all Christians or all churches.

http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/Denominations/denominations.htm

[bunnies]

90. "lots" are not the majority. nt

[phrigndumass]

86. Also the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists ...

http://www.wabaptists.org/

Great OP, rec'd!

:hi:

Added on edit: I'm also gay, and I went through the same mental processes you mentioned in choosing a candidate to support. I just wanted to affirm that.

[Zuiderelle]

24. The Methodist church I belong to is PRO-GAY. They have made a point of asking all their parishioners

to accept homosexual members and their families. I know several Methodist and Episcopal churches that do the same.

And what does gay marriage have to do with CHURCH anyway? If all religions were pro-gay, it would not change federal law.

[bunnies]

31. I know there are pro-gay churches scattered throughout all religions.

But that doesnt change the fact that most religions are anti-gay.

And imho... gay marriage should have NOTHING to do with these churches. I got married by a JP... a contract... and to deny anyone that right it bullshit.

However, people should not be judged by the opinions of various religions. Dont you agree?

[Zuiderelle]

55. No, people should be judged by what they themselves believe.

I was only answering you that not all churches are anti-gay, even though many are.

[libnnc]

39. Membership is one thing, expectations of clergy is something else

The United Methodist Church has a long-standing ban on ordaining practicing homosexual men and women. There have been two widely publicized cases in the past 10 years of women who were ordained and in long-term same-sex relationships and placed in supportive congregations and the UMC in both instances stripped them of their professional credentials. They lost their retirement too.

google Beth Stroud.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

42. Episcopalian....

[northzax]

11. really? how very odd

cause in my denomination (ok, my historical one, since I no longer practice or believe, but I do work in a church): the Episcopal Church. After the ordination of a gay bishop, a large segment, a wealthy segment, of the church threatened to leave the Convention if the church did not denounce homosexuality and ban gay priests. To their credit, the leadership of the church said "enjoy your new church, we'll miss you, leave the keys under the matt on your way out"

the heads of most bigoted religions are anti-gay, is I think what you meant to say. And if you embrace a religion as an adult, you better have a damn good reason go against a central tenent of that faith publically. there is no obligation of association anymore.

[bunnies]

19. Your quote: "the heads of most bigoted religions are anti-gay"

My quote: "the heads of most religions are bigoted".

[cali]

2. I hope you can resolve this issue for yourself.

and I'm sick and tired of some of you putting words in my mouth. I have said from the get go that I understand the anger and pain about McClurkin, and if that's a defining issue for you, that's your business. I was angry at Obama for McClurkin. I don't think he handled it well and I do think it was political opportunism. Obama's stance on GLBT issues is every bit as good as Clinton's. He speaks about GLBT issues regularly- including in unfriendly territory. He's laid out what he'd do on those issues should he become president. I no more think he has to do what you demand than Hillary has to finally apologize for her vote for the IWR. I will vote for the dem nominee.

[hulklogan]

3. I'm afraid the Obamanauts are too busy humming the Obama Girl song

to listen to us uppity whiny world-destroying queers on why we have reservations about an Obama administration.

It was that way back in December, it's going to be that way until the summer of 2012 at least, if they get their way.

I wonder how long it will take for them to blame us if, by some incredible misfortune, John W. McBush wins in November. I predict a thread titled "If only the gays had shut up about McClurkin/Meeks/Caldwell..." about five minutes after the California polls close.

[stevietheman]

4. I'm gay, and Please stop the attacks on our nominee Barack Obama. n/t

n/t

[dsc]

8. please quote the attack

and also please give me any press account, anywhere, where he has the delegates needed for nomination or please take down your lie.

[northzax]

12. attack? you didn't talk about how wonderful he is

that's a personal attack. don't you get it?

'and ye shall know them by the company they keep'

[DarienComp]

6. Me=gay and for Obama.

I won't call you a faux gay if you don't call me one.

[GarbagemanLB]

7. First off, Richardson couldn't even ADMIT THAT PEOPLE WERE BORN GAY. I guess we can dismiss the rest

of your argument based upon that gross misdjudgement of Richardson. I also supported Richardson at first, but his answer at that one on one disturbed me. Why doesn't it surprise me that a Clinton supporter would conveniently ignore such facts?

[dsc]

10. It was one of the reasons I left his campaign

it was a disturbing pattern of ill preparedness in areas he wasn't expert in. Clearly he had literally given it no thought, just like he had given no thought to his (IMO) worse answer of Justice White as his favorite justice. In both cases he answered on the fly and gave really stupid answers. They weren't his only ones. But that is what the words "seeing his campaign" meant.

on edit I don't think Richardson really thinks people choose to be gay, I just think he was given two options that didn't fit his actual opinion and chose I don't know. He likely thinks that both nature and nurture have some to do with it, which isn't a totally nutty idea.

[walldude]

9. I don't see what the big deal is...

These are RELIGIOUS leaders. They are going to be anti-gay. Does it bother you that Hillary worships in some Capitol Hill group with the likes of Rick Santorum? Why would she be any less likely to do what he says than Obama would do what Meeks says? I understand if Obama makes you nervous, but please if Hilary loses the primary, understand that even though Obama may have some issues you disagree with, I doubt he would put his personal beliefs before what's good for the country. McCain will hammer gays back to the stone age if he could.

[dsc]

16. first I will vote for the nominee no matter what

SCOTUS assures that if nothing else does. But, no, not all religious leaders are anti gay. Rev. Wright, to name one example, actually is pro gay from what I have been able to discern.

[walldude]

21. Rev Wright? I find that hard to believe

But I don't know. I have a hard time with any religion so I'm biased in that area.. Either way I'm grateful that you are voting your conscience and that you made a well reasoned and well stated point, which we don't see much of here. Vote for your candidate and which ever one wins I'll be right behind them, and you at the GE. :toast:

[dsc]

25. Wright evolved from what I can tell

but he is pro gay now. And thanks for your kind words.

[tishaLA]

14. Clinton and Obama share one thing

They are, alternately, good and not so good on LGBT issues. For example, Richardson said in the LGBT debate that being gay is a choice and, although he later clarified his position, it did him a good deal of harm; he did this after he used the Spanish word for "faggot" on Imus. On the other hand, his policies have been mostly quite good. So I tend not to judge Clinton harshly for marching in the St Patrick's day parade or Sen Obama for Meeks because it is simply a part of a calculus; the McClurkin thing was also a part of that calculus, but it stepped well over the line. That said, I think the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are negligible and Obama not only mentions LGBT issues when it isn't necessary--he also mentions then when it is least fortuitous for him (i.e., in churches).

I understand that some people can't "get past" one thing or another that a given candidate did, but there is nothing to say to help people "get past" that. We can accept the fact that candidates, like Richardson, or Clinton, or Obama, make mistakes, or we cannot.

[MadBadger]

15. This "Anti-Gay Minister thing" was never a thing in the first place.

[Devlzown]

17. You can thank Bill Clinton for DADT.

DADT was a big letdown for me because I felt at the time that Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread because of some of the statements he was making about gay rights. But instead of doing the right thing -- the courageous thing -- he compromised and we got stuck with DADT. That showed me a thing or two about his character and my opinion about him never changed after that. I think the Clintons are both opportunists and will throw anybody under the bus in order to stay in power. They must want power for power's sake, because I really don't see where they accomplish anything. Always compromising and never standing firm for anything is their story.

[dsc]

22. sorry but that is totally false

You have a right to your opinion but facts are stubborn things. Clinton was defeated on DADT. Sodomy was then, and may well be now (it hasn't been litigated since Lawerence v Texas) against the law in the military. Like any other federal law, changes in the military law can only be affected by Congress. He didn't have the votes to eliminate that law so he didn't have the votes to let gays in. I do think there are some blameworthy things in the Clinton administration for example ENDA should have been passed when we had the Senate. But DADT isn't one of the things he can be blamed for.

[Devlzown]

35. It was said at the time that he could have issued

an executive order barring discrimination against gays for which he wouldn't have needed Congress.

[dsc]

41. sorry but the people saying that were either misinformed or liars

without ending the prohibition on sodomy, no number of executive orders could let gays serve barring them somehow being celebrate. And the prohibition on sodomy was a law, just like any other.

[Devlzown]

44. You can still ban sodomy without going after gay people.

It was and is against the military code to simply tell someone you're gay. If an executive order had been issued, they wouldn't be able to bother you unless they caught you fucking, and they shouldn't catch you fucking regardless of sexual preference.

[dsc]

48. I guess you aren't familiar with the witch hunts they had before

several gays went to jail for sodomy under that code with virtually none of them caught fucking.

[Devlzown]

51. I'm familiar with those.

I'm just saying that the President has the power, as the chief enforcer of laws, to nullify certain laws by not enforcing them. He especially has that power in the military. For instance, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected President and either decides not to enforce our drug laws, then that would go a long way toward ending the War on Drugs. Each branch of government has the power to either make laws or nullify them.

[dsc]

53. Oh please

That is totally absurd. Yes, he could have lessened the degree of enforcement but on planet earth there was on way he could stop enforcement of military sodomy laws singlehandedly.

[Bluebear]

49. Sexuality is not a preference.

[Devlzown]

50. I didn't mean that. It's just a commonly used expression.

I should have said "regardless of your sexuality."

[Laughing Mirror]

60. Who was commander in chief? Clinton or Colin Powell?

Even buying your sodomy argument, you're saying the president didn't the power to override any ban in the military?

[dsc]

62. He could have permitted celebrate gays to serve

do you seriously think that there are a ton of those who wanted to serve in the military?

[Laughing Mirror]

66. celebrate gays????

Don't understand. Something's missing from your post.

And you cannot answer my question about the role of the commander in chief, can you?

[dsc]

69. sodomy, at least as the military defines it, pretty much

includes any form of gay sex. Thus any gays Clinton let in by executive order would have had to remain totally celebrate. Incidently, they could be asked, any time, under oath, about their private lives and any lies, well those would be perjury.

[Laughing Mirror]

70. You don't understand the function of the commander in chief

Or you are lying to yourself because you are so enamored with the con-artist Clintons, you are blind to the foolishness of your posts.

Off to bed now for me. Good night!

[Laughing Mirror]

73. Oh, you mean totally "celibate"

There is a difference between "celebrate" and "celibate." That's why I didn't understand. It was a nonsense post to me.

[dsc]

75. sorry I can't spell well

but I would think mentions of sex might, must might, have given you a clue.

[Laughing Mirror]

78. I'm not a mind reader

I can only respond to what's there.

[DURHAM D]

47. It was "said" but it was/is not true. eom

[Laughing Mirror]

58. Why did Bill Clinton make the pledge to gay people that he would end military discrimination

If he didn't intend to keep it? He is not a dumb person. He must have done his homework. He knew beforehand there was little chance he could make good on his pledge to us. So then, the question remains, why did he make us that pledge?

The answer is, he wanted our money and our votes. And he got them.

And he was the only president to preside over the enactment of not only one but TWO anti-gay laws. A first for any president ever!

[dsc]

72. likely he didn't know

It should be noted that you didn't know. He probably thought he could be Truman on this. The first time he talked about this was on MTV during a youth forum. Oh, and you might, just might, wish to crack open a history book. Several anti gay laws were passed in the 1920's and the 1950's. Certainly Ike, probably Truman, and certainly Harding presided over more anti gay actions by Congress than Clinton did.

[Laughing Mirror]

76. Of couse he knew

Wake up to reality!

List those anti-gay laws please that those president passed.

[dsc]

82. under Ike

we are barred from any government job (at McCarthy's behest). Several gay men were fired for being gay during that time. I would say that each firing constitutes an anti gay act. Incidently, Clinton removed all barriers to gays being employed in government save the uniformed military. The 20's saw the anti gay raids on the very first gay rights movements in Chicago and New York. An AG, named Palmer I believe, was instrumental.

[Laughing Mirror]

84. Ike signed what anti-gay bill into law? Be specific.

That is the question I'm asking.

[dsc]

87. It would have been by executive order

the whole blacklist thing. McCarthy was the big driving force but both Truman and Ike gave in and fired lots of people.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. Just wanted to say, I'm not ignoring you.

I don't take your concerns lightly, and I sincerely hope that Obama will go to bat for meaningful civil rights legislation after he is elected. I hesitate to insist that he make specific, measurable promises. Already he has to overcome bigotry on the issue of race. How can we ask him to add bigotry against gays in this campaign? I have been struggling with this ever since the McClerkin firestorm, and I don't know where to turn to find a way out of this conundrum. I'm left to hope for the best, that someone who has been and continues to face unthinking bigotry, will bring whatever power he can to bolster civil rights for members of our GLBT community.

Bill Clinton did what he could in his first 100 days, and I think it harmed his ability to make meaningful change in the long term. He tried to keep his promise and we got DADT as a result (a travesty, IMHO). It would have been far more helpful if he had waited to build popularity and support on other, less controversial issues before tackling this one. I wonder if a promise to take action too early didn't hamper Clinton's ability to make real and positive change.

So, I am left only to hope that Obama will do what he can. And that, quite frankly, sucks.

[dsc]

27. He never gave a timeline but did get forced to do it too fast

He should have waited for his own Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff before trying to get gays in the military.

[closeupready]

26. With all due respect, dsc, all that stuff about Hillary's association with gays is news to me.

I had never heard any of that before. That must be a failure of communication on her campaign's part? I mean, honestly, I don't understand why I never heard this stuff before.

Now it's too late, insofar as I'm firmly in Obama's camp now.

[dsc]

32. The lesbian baby sitter I only heard of recently

but the other two are fairly well known. She often mentions her father's neighbors and the spokeman was heavily quoted in the Advocate article about Hillary.

[libnnc]

28. I'm a lesbian and I will back the nominee who will be Obama.

I made that decision a month ago after long consideration and realizing that this country is in so much deep shit right now, we need serious, serious help. I have posted this a million times but I'll post it again. It was Naomi Wolf who pushed me into the Obama camp. She's a feminists' feminist and is far from being even remotely homophobic. Our democracy is in peril. We are at the End of America. This is it. We're on the edge of a really scary cliff. Were this a stable democracy right now, I'd put my issues as a lesbian ahead of everything else.

My point is, I trust Barack Obama to bring us back from that edge. I trust that he will not shit all over the LGBT community. What I fervently HOPE is that he will not leave it to Michelle to make inroads with our community. I want HIM to do that.

Hillary built that bridge when Bill fucked us over. Teresa Heinz Kerry built that bridge when John needed her to. Elizabeth Edwards built that bridge when John Edwards hesitated on his "journey".

I want Barack Obama to build the bridge himself.

Don't leave it to Michelle. That is my hope.

[JayFredMuggs]

29. The "Obama thing"?

Clinton and Obama are nearly identical?

What is wrong with the first election where two major Democratic candidates for President have both come out in support of gay rights?

Obama wants it a national decision, if possible, since a state by state piecemeal decision is absurd. Hillary wants to leave it up the the states... so take your pick, or move to another state if Hillary gets her way.

I think some gay folks here need to do more research and listen closer to what Hillary and Barack say. I don't think it's quite a "nearly identical" position if you live in Mississippi or Idaho, if you choose Hillary.

[dsc]

34. that is only true about DOMA

and frankly irrelevent. DOMA can't overrule the full faith and credit clause. Their promises are nearly identical.

[ekwhite]

30. Rev. Wright has publicly supported gay rights

As has the new pastor of Trinity UCC. The UCC church as a whole supports gay rights. Obama himself has decried homophobia in the black community. He has a pretty good record on gay rights.

[GarbagemanLB]

33. Don't bring logic into this thread, it hurts the Hillbots' brains.

[Bluebear]

40. Holy trolly!

[JayFredMuggs]

36. Yeah, stop being logical and factual ... it hurts Hillary's supporters who

put a lot of faith in defeating Obama because Obama's minister says a few inflammatory things in church on Sunday mornings... that's the extent of their logic, and they get upset that a man of two races with impeccable credentials to be President can rob Hillary of her chance to be defeated by McSame.

[dsc]

37. I have no problems with Wright

(well aside from the anti Italian stuff that was not so great) and am glad the new pastor also is. But Obama has shown a very disturbing pattern here.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Maybe we like. After all the months, it's like an old friend. I'd miss it.

[Prism]

43. Too much "we" in the singular

And therein rests a lot of the problems on the DU forum when it comes to the GLBT community. There really are a hundred gay opinions under the sun when it comes to the candidates, and yet there's a persistent, troublesome attitude that one's personal opinion as a GLBT individual is somehow more valid than anyone else's when it comes to a candidate. Demands are put forth, attitudes templated into the discussion, and in the end the issues become less "How we can move gay rights forward," to "Why my candidate is the most pro-gay, and you should believe me, because I'm a gay individual."

But that doesn't really mean anything at all. I've seen some really (IMO) bizarre and strange views held by my fellow GLBTers in this primary campaign. All you really have left are the arguments, because our "feelings" about individuals often have little to do with our orientation. How is it you're GLBT and I'm GLBT and we're at precise opposite "feelings" about the judgement and integrity of the candidates?

That said, I don't think either candidate is homophobic. The make-or-break line for me in this decision is how the candidates comport themselves in unfriendly territory. My problem with Senator Clinton is that she does not lead on gay issues. She follows. She has always said and done just enough once it was politically safe. In 2000, she believed marriage was a religious institution. That was the safe, standard line at the time. Now it's 2008, the issue has moved along, and she discusses political expediency. That is now the safe standard within the Democratic Party.

Obama is in a similar position. He's going after the safe, standard lines in the broader national campaign. They're both very similar in that respect. So the question becomes, how to decide who will lead and who will do "just enough" (read: nothing).

Clinton has a long and storied history of doing "just enough" for gays. Just enough to keep our loyalty, just enough to allows us to excuse her greater faults with a semi-clear conscience, just enough for all of us to pretend she's a great lioness when it comes to gay rights even though she has little to show for it. Obama, IMO, has gone the extra mile in confronting homophobia within the black religious community. He goes in front of hostile crowds and tells them truths they might not want to hear. For me, that's important. That sets a tone. That tells me that he's not going to be frightened off just because he knows his view is unpopular. He's not going to poll it, triangulate it, word it precisely just so when it comes to on-the-ground policy and political actions. Yes, the rhetoric is very similar, but his example and where he chooses to wield that rhetoric is vastly different from Clinton's play-it-safe approach to gay isssues. Has anyone ever seen Senator Clinton in a church talking about how wrong it is to treat gays like dirt? Of course not. She would never.

That says something to me.

McClurkin was stupidity made animate. There was really no excuse for it, and I'm certainly not going to defend it. However, Meeks is a different creature. To understand Meeks, you have to understand the South Side Chicago political culture, how the black religious community is involved in politics, and the vast number of pastors, reverends, and et ceteras who are deeply, deeply involved with every politician from the wards down to Springfield. Meeks' anti-gay views? Not unusual. If you want to go after black South Side ministers for their repugnant points of view, check out the galloping doses of anti-semitism that permeate. If you want to know just how deep the entire political culture goes down the rabbit hole of bigotry, look up what happened to the Illinois Hate Crimes panel when a Nation of Islam member backed up anti-gay and anti-semitic remarks made by Louis Farrakhan. The Democratic governor of our state had to go into hiding, because he knew the politics cannot be touched without seriously messing with the way Democratic politics work in Chicago and larger Illinois.

Most Democrats in Illinois don't bother with it. Pro-gay legislation is passed, the ministers do their thing and grease their own wheels, and somehow the Democratic Party rolls along. So it has been, so it will always be. It ain't pretty, it's full of bigotry, and any politician coming out of Chicago is going to have those associations.

Just as Bill and Hillary Clinton came rolling out of a suspiciously corrupt Arkansas political culture, so Obama has emerged from Chicago with the same ghosts of a political machine hanging about his person. Am I going to get on him for that? No. Because if I did, then I couldn't support any politician. Certainly not Senator Clinton, because she has the same past, the same associations, the same kinds of bigots lurking about in her support system and background.

Just because her supporters paper over them, ignore them, and refuse to mention them when they bring up Obama's associations, it doesn't mean they aren't there in spades as well.

[dsc]

46. I am not denying that she has homophobes involved in her campaign

but she also has positive influences as well. He also has a pattern.

[Prism]

57. What pattern?

I'll spot you McClurkin, but other than that, what else is there in Obama's campaign that's so exceptionally troublesome? And why are his associations more troublesome than Senator Clinton's? Why the double standard? His every association is studied, dissected, parsed, laser-focused. Her's are papered over, ignored, dismissed as insignificant.

Honestly, every politician in Chicago has a Meeks-like character or twelve bouncing around in the background somewhere. Is that a pattern specific to him, or is that a pattern specific to the various alliances forged with the black community by the Democratic party. You and I both know that many black religious communities have a highly virulent strain of homophobia running through them, and you and I both know that many urban black religious communities are considered the Democratic base in elections.

So I'm curious why all the attention given to it now. When Senator Clinton solicited their support, no one batted an eyelash. When a thousand Democratic politicians played footsie with the ministers, everyone shrugged it off as the price of playing coalition politics.

Now Obama has those exact same associations, and it's the worst thing anyone's ever heard.

Why?

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that despite those associations, the Illinois Democratic Party has very neatly managed several pro-gay initiatives in recent years, including trans-inclusive legislation. That despite all of these political associations that are suddenly deeply troubling and must have grave implications on any gay legislation in an Obama administration, the city and state are considered some of the most pro-gay places in the country.

If Chicago and Illinois politics have these characters playing power brokers, and there's still pro-gay legislation being passed, why do people think Obama or anyone else coming from that culture will suddenly behave differently in national office? Shouldn't we be looking at how these religious figures play into city and state politics, the results on gay legislation as a portent for what might result? It would seem silly to address it out of context, without including any history or result that is clearly researchable and knowable.

Right now, all we have is "Meeks is an anti-gay minister. Obviously that is a sinister influence that will have bad results for LGBTs." Ok, but Meeks is an influential figure in Chicago politics. Chicago is a very, very gay-supportive city to live in. How do you reconcile your own feelings and assertions against grounded, observable facts?

[dsc]

61. I have lived in Chicago

and yes it is very progay. The fact Meeks has done a poor job of advocating for his issues doesn't mean Obama won't listen to him later on.

[Prism]

67. But he hasn't listened to him so far . . .

So why would Obama suddenly U-turn in the future? What basis do you have for that "feeling" when, so far, facts don't comport with your predictions?

And believe me, if the ministers wanted to make Chicago a place generally unfriendly to gays, they could do so in a heartbeat. Like I said in a previous post, look up what happened to the Illinois hate crimes panel. Gay and Jewish members were not at all pleased with the Nation of Islam. They resigned in protest. In the face of it, South Side politicians and religious figures basically made Gov. Blagojevich sit down and shut up. He knows where his electoral bread is buttered.

And yet, still a pretty pro-gay place to live. So, again I ask: What factual basis do you have for your feeling? "I'm gay, and we have instincts about these things," isn't much to go on. Especially not when many gays either don't share your instinct or have a flatly opposing one. My feelings are based on having grown up and continuing to live on the South Side, with a front row seat to how these religious figures and politicians co-exist, and how gay rights are folded into the Democratic tent.

You have a "feeling" things will be bad. I have observable facts that things are decent for gays in the city and state where these religious figures have the most influence. Why should anyone heed your warning in the face of that?

[Texas Hill Country]

45. ummm... hillary has been very good with gay rights, even marching in NY

Obama on the otherhand has a spiritual advisor that is rabidly homophobic, and has responded to questions about gay marriage with "why fight over gay marraige when we have a war on? that is more important."

Translation: Gays can wait and as my grandpa always said... if you lie down with the dogs, you cant get away without at least some fleas.

[Laughing Mirror]

54. What anti-gay minister are you talking about?

Are you conflating self-hating back in the closet McClurkin with Rev Wright, was has support gay people since the 1980s?

Please explain honestly the title of your thread.

[dsc]

56. there are now three McClurkin, Meeks and the one from Texas

Wright is actually progay.

[Laughing Mirror]

63. So it's a dishonest & confused title

You need to point out who exactly you're talking about so as not to confuse people, which seems to be what you want to do.

Is this the way teach your students? Poor kids.

[dsc]

74. funny you are the only person confused

gee, wonder whose fault that might be? Unlike you, I'll be too kind to answer.

[Laughing Mirror]

79. You mentioned no name of any minister in your OP

So how could I possibly know who the hell exactly you were talking about? I thought I'd missed out on some new scandal.

I read the other people's posts. Most of them didn't address the issue of the title of thread. I did.

[Laughing Mirror]

81. Who's this one from Texas?

Sheesh. I must have missed him.

[dsc]

85. I honestly can't recall his name

but he had some sort of ex gay ministry advertized on his website when he endorsed Obama. In fairness, he is decidedly the least of the problems I have amoung the three because he had far less of a direct connection to Obama.

[Laughing Mirror]

88. You can't even recall his name and yet you make him one the subjects of your thread?

OK.

Nice chatting with you. Good night.

[avrdream]

59. You nailed it for me.

Except that I knew how pro-gay Hillary was a long time ago and haven't had to wrestle with it during this primary like you have.

What I didn't know before was how much Barry would use the anti-gay sentiment in the AA community to his advantage: McClurkin is one example.

I thought Barry was better than that and he lost my vote at that point.

Like you say, we gays must look at things like this. In your words, "Usually we become quite adept at these, often snap, judgements because if we aren't we might get our ass kicked, be denied a job we want, or lose the love and support of a family member."

Well, my judgment says Barack is a flim-flam man when it comes to pushing for gay rights - he will say one thing but do another.

[dchill]

64. There ARE two Clintons, you know...

I am completely unconvinced that THIS Clinton gives a crap about gays, or anybody else but herself, for that matter. I sincerely recommend that you not trust her.

[kwenu]

65. What judgments have you made about the WIFE of the guy who signed DOMA into LAW!!!!

:shrug:

[Lucky 13]

68. A respectful argument that Obama is the best choice for the gay community.

WHERE I'M COMING FROM AND THOUGHTS ON PECEPTIONS
I am a gay woman and am very much for Senator Obama in this election. There are many reasons why. Some logical, factually based arguments and some, like you pointed out, "feelings" we get from the candidates. Some candidates make us feel warm and fuzzy. Some candidates make us nauseaus. I, personally, get much more of a feeling of openness, acceptance, and intolerance for homophobia from Obama.

While I believe "gaydar" is an actual "sense" gay people can develop over time, (I like to think I'm particularly accurate with this ability) I'm not sure about "gay-hate-dar" or "gay-squeemish-dar". Getting the feeling like you are in for a beating is VERY different than seeing someone on TV and making a judgement as to whether they will support a pro-LGBT rights agenda based on soundbites or clips. Public figures have surprised me both ways on that - political or not.



LEGISLATION OR MEASURABLE DELIVERABLES FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY

I too wish both candidates would produce more measureable inclusive objectives. But I won't hold my breath. As many are quick to point out, our mere existence is divisive to some people and I don't think we'll see either Democratic candidate come out for us in any BIG way. Why? Because McCain will skewer them with it in the General Election.

The examples you cited would be great - repeal of DADT, passage ENDT, hate crime law. Except that, most of what you suggest is not within his control. He does not have the ability to pass legislation, especially in a time frame like that - that's Congress' job.

I would like to point out that DADT and the Defense of Marriage act were enacted during the Clinton administration. That means something to me. And right or wrong, I think it's a negative for Hillary in my book.

Despite the lack of measurable promises, Obama has made his support for the LGBT community clear. And not only does he talk the talk, he walks the walk, passing and sponsoring legislation in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate favorable to LGBT rights.

Here is a link to Barack's responses to a Human Rights Campaign survey of the candidates
LINK: http://www.outfordemocracy.org/docs/2008/obamahrcresponse.pdf

I've highlighted my favorite pieces below. Bold indicates votes for pro-gay legislation, votes against anti-gay legislation, or support, passage or sponsorship of legislation favorable to gay rights. Non-bold are just his positions on subjects or non-legislative action he's taken:

Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical disability.

Obama also sponsored and passed legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Barack Obama supported legislation in the Illinois State Senate to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and public accommodations.

Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. “We are better than this. And we certainly owe the American people more than this. I know that this amendment will fail, and when it does, I hope we can start discussing issues and offering proposals that will actually improve the lives of most Americans.” (Barack Obama on the Senate floor regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment, June 5, 2006)


Barack Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy.

Barack Obama supports civil unions that give gay couples full rights, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and the same property rights as anyone else.

Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in consultation with military commanders. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Barack Obama believes that homosexuals should have the same adoption rights as heterosexuals.

Obama went to a large evangelical conference in 2006 to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle. At this conservative Christian event, Obama pushed for a balanced approach to fighting the disease that includes condom distribution. In late 2006, Barack Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, which is one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health
care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS.



SO WHERE IS OBAMA'S GAY SUPPORT?
You stated:
"If Obama has prominate gay associations, bring them to the fore. We know from our personal experience that when people know gay people, they are vastly more likely to care about gay people."

Indeed he does have prominent gay associations and gay leaders have said some positive things about him:

He recently held a fundraiser at the home of GLSEN founder and executive director Kevin Jennings and his partner, Jeff Davis, the event drew about 125 people and raised $170,000.
LINK: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53048.asp

In a recent speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, he brought up the LGBT community in front of an audience where it is admittedly not a popular topic saying, "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

The speech was praised by Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign. He said he thought the speech was the first time a presidential candidate had brought up gay issues in front of a non-gay audience without being prompted to do so. He called it "dramatically refreshing" and went on to say, "It is a great day when we can look at a field of candidates and determine that we are comfortable with all of them on gay rights and move on to other issues."

Lastly, NGLTF also produced an analysis of the Presidential candidates. It appears to me that they regard our two democratic candidates as comparible on almost every point.
LINK: http://thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf

Now I know, I know... Hillary has marched in gay parades before. But marching in a parade and standing up to Republican thugs are two different things. Frankly, gay pride marches have never meant much to me. I'd rather work behind the scenes to make something actually happen. But that's just me. No judgments if you are a parade fan.


CONCLUSION
As I stated previously, I don't think we will see either of these candidates come out and make any earth shattering promises regarding the LGBT community. Both have shown to be favorable to gay people and I am thankful that whoever our nominee is, I feel we are in (relatively) good hands.

I think Obama's problems with the gay community actually come from his desire to be MORE inclusive. Have a BIGGER tent. Unlike many democrats who distance themselves from people who don't share our liberal or progressive views, he's actively trying to engage people who think along very different lines. I've argued with my parents for a long time that "Jesus is a Democrat". I fail miserably in my attempts to convince them, but that's what I believe. There are Christians out there that think that gays are just plain wrong. Many of those same Christians can also believe that the war is wrong and this country needs change. Does that mean we don't want their vote or support because we disagree on the gay issue? I say emphatically, no.

The bigger the tent, the louder the noise. Debate is good. Difference of opinion is good. Acceptance of everyone is good. Beating John McCain... that's very good. And we'll need everyone to help accomplish that.

I firmly believe Obama will be an excellent guardian of my rights and what's more, I trust him at his word. I hope you will give him a second look too.

[dsc]

80. then why isn't he speaking to David Duke or Klan chaplins

This big tent thing really pisses me off no end. I have no problem with him going into these churches. While not enamoured with, I am not really that upset over his saying being gay is a sin. But he goes much further and frankly in a way that would never be tolerated by him or anyone else, in regards to race. He didn't invite Imus to fundraise for him. He wanted Imus fired. Well, McClurkin is every bit as reprehensible as Imus and every bit as deserving to be left out of big tents. DADT wasn't Clinton's fault, DOMA admittedly is a bit different. As to your list of Obama accomplishments, Clinton did those too (except the state stuff). I know my opinion isn't universal, but I just don't trust this man and more and more of these ministers come out of the woodwork.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. "If Obama has prominate gay associations": How about his Deputy National Campaign Director?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hildebrand

[dsc]

83. that is a start

admittedly I have no idea how high ranking that makes him or what access he would have to Obama in that role. Props to both Daschle and Johnson on using an openly gay campaign manager in SD BTW. But in any case, good for Obama.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I don't know, either- but I've seen him quoted in high profile campaign related pieces that have

nothing to do with LGBT issues- so I'm pretty sure he's highly placed on a National Level.

I'm sure someone else has already pointed you to this, but here's Obama's section devoted to LGBT citizens and issues on his website:

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

If Hillary Clinton has a similar specific part of her website devoted to LGBT supporters, I haven't been able to find it.