Barack Obama | Donnie McClurkin | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | News | Religion | South Carolina

BigGayDeal.com

Barack Obama to Tour with Anti-Gay Gospel Singer

Obama_2

Barack Obama is set to begin a three-day gospel tour in South Carolina intended to shore up support from conservative Black Christians in that state, where he is facing strong competition from Hillary Clinton. Joining him on that tour will be gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, a notorious homophobe who performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004, has vowed to battle "the curse of homosexuality," and believes that gays can be turned straight with religious intervention.

Mcclurkin_2In 2004, the reported: "McClurkin wrote on a Christian Web site in 2002 that he struggled with homosexuality after he was molested by male relatives when he was 8 and 13. 'I've been through this and have experienced God's power to change my lifestyle," he wrote. "I am delivered and I know God can deliver others, too.'"

Should Obama go ahead and appear with McClurkin it surely looks to be a huge misstep in terms of his LGBT support.

Writing in the Huffington Post, political analyst and social issues commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson told Obama to "repudiate his gay bash tour," saying the candidate's move is shameless and reprehensible:

"Legions have bought his pitch, and have shelled out millions to bankroll his campaign. But healing and consensus building does not mean sucking up to someone that publicly boasts that he's in "a war" against gays, and that the aim of his war is to "cure" them. That's what McClurkin has said. Polls show that more Americans than ever say that they support civil rights for gays, and a torrent of gay themed TV shows present non-stereotypical depictions of gays. But this increased tolerance has not dissipated the hostility that far too many blacks, especially hard core Bible thumping blacks, feel toward gays. Obama has spent months telling everyone that he's everything that Bush isn't. He can proof it by saying a resounding no to McClurkin and to gay bashing."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I've long thought that Obama was not the liberal that people thought, and this move spells the end of his campaign.

    Posted by: SeanR | Oct 22, 2007 10:05:15 AM


  2. I am now an active opponent of Barak (The Betrayer) Obama. This man must NEVER be elected as President...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Oct 22, 2007 10:10:54 AM


  3. This is why I despise political campaigns, especially for President.

    So he "needs" this preacher to win the Southern conservative black vote. Then next week he'll "need" someone politically active in the gay community to win the gay vote. It's ridiculous... who even knows what these candidates ACTUALLY believe anymore?

    I think we should elect Lassie. I've heard rumors she doesn't waiver on any of her beliefs. Here's hoping she can debate well enough to turn the tide in her favor.

    Posted by: David | Oct 22, 2007 10:23:27 AM


  4. Yeah, unfortunately I think this spells the end of my support for him. The clintons throwing us under the bus all those years ago caused her to be a non-starter with me so I'll vote for Edwards, and particularly his wife.

    Posted by: Jersey | Oct 22, 2007 10:28:21 AM


  5. "Should Obama go ahead and appear with McClurkin it surely looks to be a huge misstep in terms of his LGBT support"

    This absolutely amazes me! Obama has NEVER supported LGBT issues, NEVER. So please enlighten me as to how we were ever supposed to support him? And I thought everyone thought the "spin" only came from repubs. Apparently, Obama can "spin" with the best of them. He is not a liberal, he is NOT for gay rights and is not on our side. However, he is no more against us that any of the others. We just want to believe that because the dems debated on Logo that they care. They do not. No surprises there!

    One party is no more willing to support LGBT rights than the other. There are extremes on both sides and no one is willing to step up. If they were, the dem controlled congress would have done so by now.

    Posted by: RB | Oct 22, 2007 10:30:01 AM


  6. Enough of these demon-rats. The other evil twin is no better. Both will lead us to rack and ruin. Let's vote the Workers World Party, the party of Leslie Fienberg and full steam ahead on queer issues. Can anyone still say DOMA or DADT or ENDA. Queer people once again should take their rightful place as leaders and stop saying "please," "please" as Dems and Repb's turn back the clock. I still think that birds of a feather flock together, at least the last time I looked.

    Posted by: Richard | Oct 22, 2007 10:31:01 AM


  7. I hope no one's too surprised by this. I just hope you remember it when it comes time to cast your vote.

    Posted by: queendru | Oct 22, 2007 10:33:00 AM


  8. Told y'all he's a bigot. I toldja so.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Oct 22, 2007 10:34:58 AM


  9. This settles it for me. I am voting for Edwards. True, he still has a way to go towards understanding our community, but he's a better fit for me than Obama.

    I am very disappointed in Obama. I really thought he was better than this. In my eyes, it would be no different than a GOP candidate touring with the KKK. It's just wrong.

    Posted by: Jonathon | Oct 22, 2007 10:43:02 AM


  10. OK, I just can't leave it alone.

    "McClurkin wrote on a Christian Web site in 2002 that he struggled with homosexuality after he was molested by male relatives when he was 8 and 13. 'I've been through this and have experienced God's power to change my lifestyle," he wrote. "I am delivered and I know God can deliver others, too.'"

    And there are your standard anti-gay talking points:

    1. Homosexuals are child molestors.

    2. Homosexuality if the result of child abuse.

    3. It is possible to change one's sexual orientation through a magical, spiritual experience.

    I am very sorry that this man was molested by his own relatives. I am sorry that he, as a child, had to endure something that would so scar him as an adult.

    But none of this means that McClurkin is or ever was a homosexual. He may have "questioned" his sexuality after he was abused, but he doesn't ever say that he had a real inclination towards his own sex. He doesn't say that he felt love or affection for someone of the same sex. He just says that he was raped (by his own relatives), "struggled", and then was "delivered" into the loving, heterosexual arms of Jesus.

    It didn't make him gay, but it sure made him a homophobe. How sad.

    Posted by: Jonathon | Oct 22, 2007 10:50:35 AM


  11. Desperate and stupid move. When you leave South Carolina, you still have to go to California. Very disappointing.

    Well, we'll have our first woman president in a year and a half. I still never loved her or Bill...never.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 22, 2007 10:52:19 AM


  12. He wasn't going to win the black vote anyway. This is pointless.

    Posted by: Jason | Oct 22, 2007 10:56:05 AM


  13. So true, JONATHON! Yeah I'm officially anti OBAMA now. And to think that he paraded a pro gay attitude for months. Politicians...

    Posted by: Shabaka | Oct 22, 2007 10:56:33 AM


  14. The thing about politicians is that they are politicians. The only Dem out there who consistently tells the truth is Kucinich, and there is no way in hell he will ever be elected. He just doesn't look "presidential".

    Posted by: Bill | Oct 22, 2007 11:01:28 AM


  15. Some grown men and older teenagers who are not classic pedophiles will rape a gay boy--especially if the boy is effeminate.

    "you want to be like a girl anyway ,don't ya'" is what they say as they hold down the seven, eight, or eleven year old.

    Half the gay men I know were molested as children, but that didn't have a damn thing to do with them becoming gay. Their "gayness" was used as an excuse by the adult (or older) rapist to physically hurt, degrade, and humiliate a gay boy.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 22, 2007 11:03:53 AM


  16. Thanks RB, You are absolutely correct. Obama is a bigot. He was able to fool many, however, because he is a skilled, though inexperienced, politician. He was never going to win the nomination, much less the presidency, because of residual bigotry toward black men. Good to see him hoisted upon his own petard. Karma is a bitch baby! Now if we can just get our liberal "friends" who talk the talk but will not walk the walk to similarly expose themselves.

    Posted by: rudy | Oct 22, 2007 11:04:05 AM


  17. RB, you will never convince me that the Democratic Party is AS BAD as the Republican Party on gay issues. That is just a ridiculous claim. You know as well as I do that the main obstacle to passing gay supportive legislation in Congress is the narrow majority and the fear of promised vetoes. The Democrats are being forced to play the game of narrow majority under an opposition White house which requires strategy, compromise and patience. That doesn't make me happy but it's reality.

    Still it doesn't compare to a couple of years ago when specifically ANTI-gay bills were being tabled on a regular basis and ALWAYS by Republicans (i.e. the Marriage "Protection" Amendment).

    Love ya bubba. I'll always have your back but I can't let this outrageous comment pass without a response.

    As for Obama, I wish he would stop calling himself a member of the United Church of Christ and that his faith directs his positions on gay issues. His "positions" on gay issues like marriage equality, is completely contrary to the position of the UCC!

    This latest revelation about him disgusts me and has taken him out of the running for my vote.

    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 22, 2007 11:31:22 AM


  18. While this confirms my gut feeling that Obama's gay-positive attitudes are only skin deep, I WILL STILL VOTE FOR HIM for President should he get the nomination because while he and his white, straight male advisors are CLUELESS about us they are only proposing campaigning with a homohating Psychopath For Jesus [soon to be busted in a gay scandal near you] about whom they failed to do "due diligence" versus someone like Arnold who consciously hired a professional homobasher to wrangle votes FROM homophobes for his reelection campaign. The REPUG CANDIDATES for President ARE HOMOHATERS THEMSELVES!!!

    We can't be certain what any candidate will do in office BUT when every Repug says he WON'T support gay rights, e.g., is AGAINST overturning DADTDP, and EVERY Dem says they will, then who ya gonna call? Who you going to bet on? The horse that hasn't always come in first or the horse totally running the wrong direction?

    That is unless you're a mindreader like ...drumroll....the Amazing RB. Ta duh! Tell us, were you born with this gift to know for certain that the gay rights statements, both oral and written, by EVERY Dem candidate are insincere while the statements and actions by the Repugs look like white sheet fittings.

    No Dem showed up at the "Value Voters" orgy this weekend where all the Repug candidates were on their knees giving bad blow jobs to the fascist faithful? Wonder why Rudy didn't do his drag act there? Did he take his former gay hosts, you know the couple that he briefly lived with after dumping his wife for his mistress that fools so many into thinking he really loves us. Fuck that DELUSION! Two words: Mary Cheney.

    Before he finally died of having eaten too many hog jowls, was any Dem seen publicly rimming the hog-jowled Jerry Falwell as most of the Repugs have, including so-called fair, decent, civil libertarian John McCain who once publicly memorialized the heroism of Flight 93 passenger Mark Bingham? McCain's problem isn't skin cancer, it's cancer of the soul, and it's equally terminal in Rudy "Domestic Partnerships Are Too Much Like Marriage" Giuliani, Mitt the AntiChrist, Sam OnMyBack for Jesus, and Fred Even Nixon Thought He Was Dumb Thompson.

    And spare us any more Tourette's seizures about marriage equality. It's a dog that will not hunt in this election for anyone. Bottom line: Obama can be educated. None of the Repugs even want to try. [See: Romney/Massachusetts/Gay Marriage; Giuliani on New Hampshire DPs, etc., etc., etc.].

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 22, 2007 11:36:07 AM


  19. Like LELAND, I too will vote for Barack Obama should he get the Democratic nod for President. But I will do so while holding my nose. I've always said I don't like Barack Obama because he seems so 'church-y'. The fact that he would tour South Carolina with this homophobe proves to me that he is no friend to the gay community. But that doesn't necessarily mean he is a foe either. Unlike all the Republican nominees, Obama has always stated that he is against the hateful Federal Marriage Amendment. That alone means he is better than any of the Republican contenders. But he is far from what we deserve.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 22, 2007 11:57:09 AM


  20. GO HILLARY...

    Posted by: Dakota | Oct 22, 2007 12:02:15 PM


  21. GO HILLARY...

    Posted by: Dakota | Oct 22, 2007 12:03:14 PM


  22. What a bunch of cocksuckers.

    Posted by: vinny | Oct 22, 2007 12:29:11 PM


  23. The "Magic Negro"

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

    Is plum out of Magic.

    I never thought anyone could make Hillary look good - until now.

    Were it possible I'd vote for Edwards.

    Elizabeth Edwards, of course.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Oct 22, 2007 12:42:51 PM


  24. Another treacherous jackass, Obama, exposes what it really means to be a Democrat: opposition to samesex marriage, pulling the teeth of civil rights laws like ENDA, and campaigninig with bible in hand trying to appease bigots.

    Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 22, 2007 12:43:31 PM


  25. Pay no attention to that pathological shit stirrer behind the curtain: Comrade Perdue, the oldest living Fag for Stalin, still dreaming about a Socialist Utopia so he uses any excuse to bash Dems while pretending to hate Repugs just as much. Shall we all vote for Nader again?

    Don't ja luv how those with Mad Tranny Disease are now attacking ENDA itself even tho they're willing to destroy the entire movement in the name of Ts? ["We had to destroy the village in order to save it." - Vietnam, 1968]. How many saboteurs have you heard of who try to blow up the house they want to live in?

    537 votes changed history in 2000.

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 22, 2007 1:16:16 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Ugly Betty's Buff Reveal: Henry's Strip Down« «