I am still unsure what to make of this. I've researched it and realized that it is mostly overblown but something is still troubling me and I've always been one to trust my gut so I'm trying to figure out what. I'm going to try to outline my thoughts and if people could give constructive positive reasons not to jump ship or reasons to I'd appreciate it. Currently I've placed my position of Member Coordinator for Colorado State University’s Students for Barack Obama on hold until I figure out my thoughts on this.
So starting with this controversy:
- This guy confuses me. He sang at the DNC in '92 and was on Oprah. Both before he published his book Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor and started his more vocal opposition to homosexuality. Since then he performed at the RNC in '04 and has in general politically been more aligned with the republican scene.
- Yet somehow Obama has attracted him. This is an amazing! Step forward for democrats. If Obama has the power to get strongly anti-gay evangelicals to vote for him... and he is a progressive candidate then that would be great for the Democratic Party in general!
- Also please no one give me this bull on Obama being this leader in Gay Rights. He is good. He is certainly at the front but he is not a vanguard like Kucinich. He supports the safe measures and then muddies the distinction between the civil and religious aspects of marriage. And that while his very own denomination supports marriage equality. Using religion to justify your stance, when others in your own religion feel directly opposite is offensive. I can and do overlook this though.
- I realize this was probably just an oversight by his staff. Someone looked for popular gospel singers and didn't think about the man's politics. Also I don't want any B.S. about this guy being "a well known gay hater." That’s ridiculous. He's no Dobson. He's not even a LaBarbara. He's just not that well known in the political scene. Also his views are... mostly benign. He actually practices the "Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner" BS (this in itself is offensive to me but I have to let it slide) unlike his white evangelical counterparts. He does want equal treatment of gays under the law, and is certainly no Fred Phelps.
However he does have the scientifically unsupported stance that gays can change through counseling. This attacks the core of my being so don't give me the response "this is what 90% of Christians believe." No. If that were true than the GLBT community would have made no gains in the past 40 years. Also he takes his own trials of youth and applies it to ALL homosexuals. Yes the rapes that happened to him are deplorable, but it is no excuse either. If he personally had a misguided sexuality then that is fine. But when he counsels adolescents in this there is an issue. Also most homosexuals were not raped or abused when children and this old argument is untrue. Also he subtle parallels the older argument that gays=pedophiles. (Mostly grasping at straws with this one but it's something that does bother me still.)
It's the old story of ex-gays and why the GLBT community condemns them on every front. They are scientifically disproven, conversion therapy is condemned, and they refuse to just allow it to just affect themselves. The most sanctimonious amongst us were often the worst sinners and this is constantly what happens with these people. They used drugs. They had copious amounts of promiscuous sex. They were unhappy. Therefore all gays do or are.
Now some thoughts into my mindset and why I am getting upset about this.
- The gay bashing politics of 2000 and 2004 are still fresh in my mind. I don't believe Bush would have won without the numerous marriage bans that passed in the key conflict states. The republicans thought and were right that massive amounts of people would turn out to vote for this, and give them a boost.
- I have clearly defined villains. I live in CO-04 congressional district otherwise known as that one represented by Marilyn Musgrave. Republicans are the villains in the gay rights scene. Therefore their opposites should be a naturally defined hero. However more and more I feel that the Democrats are not as clearly defined on this issue.
- I am cynical. Fact. Therefore I don't believe that Obama is above all the old-school tricks of politics. His constant lashings at Clinton especially on some articles he's never voted on or voiced a clear alternative to (vagueness equals disappointment later) is an old-school trait. This could be the old-school tactic of using 'code' to speak to different audiences. The nudge-nudge-wink. And since rumors on the blogosphere suggests some staffer implied that McClurkin was chosen specifically to woo this segment... it makes one wonder. Now I will be fair. He was probably chosen because he is popular, black and a gospel singer.
- I also have an inherent distrust of evangelicals. This is my prejudice and I own it. But the way I see things is that I have been abused by others using Religion. Where are those who disagree? Who think Jesus might have said something different? Who realizes the complaints about the passages against homosexuality? The fact is the leaders for the evangelical community are VIRULENTLY anti-gay and there are no voices standing up and saying publically "No your interpretation of God is not mine. Your hate is not Jesus’ message."
Obama is... confusing on this for me. He does acknowledge gays, talks to us, supports us. That is all good. And often using religion as a justification for his treatment of the GLBT community. That is Great! But he still uses his religion publically to condemn us on another level. That is not.
- The comments made by Obama supporters to people who question the logic of this move has also decreased my respect for the whole movement. It feels like mostly it's been a "You don't know what you're talking about. STFU" One there are a lot of people upset. I concede sensationalism is part of it. But part of it because it's just odd. So obviously being so disrespectful of the feelings will not help anything.
Others are "This is the way Christians feel." Uhm... Yeah well obviously not all or there would have been no gains in GLBT rights in the 40 years of fighting. Thing is even if it's what they believe does it make it right? And does Obama need to provide a stage for him?
Then the argument "That’s just the president Obama is going to be. One for everyone!" Well I need to respect values too. And Progressive Values and Conservative values are often at odds. If I wanted a conservative value candidate I'd vote republican. We have separate parties here. I think I should be able to demand a little from my candidate. He is not great on GLBT rights... and I just don't know about giving a stage to McClurkin. I guess for this to resolve I need to wait for the event to hear what McClurkin says.
And the Excuse "He was raped. This excuses his overgeneralizations." No. When one makes logical fallacies one calls them on it. Don't excuse misinformation. Don't excuse bigotry. (Anti-gay bigotry is still bigotry.)
- Obama's Response. It came late. I was angry over this all day and if finally arrives at 6? I was vehemently upset and nothing from HQ. That was disrespectful. It's good though. Well Written. He addresses several issues of importance in opening the dialogue. Beneficial. But late and... almost I dunno - maybe I am just trying to justify my rage. I will give this the benefit of the doubt and state his implied goals of dialogues would be extremely important to LGBT rights.
So in all I don't know what to think. I know I won't get what I want on GLBT issues with any candidate so maybe that’s a non-point. I know McClurkin is a popular gospel singer and that’s why he was chosen. I know Obama has denounced his position. I know Obama's position. I know the group he is talking to. I can understand all of this.
But it still makes me upset. It still raises the hair on the back of my neck, and my anger. Being a single issue voter is dangerous but one also has to ask when you stop making concessions?