04/10/2008
Barack Obama Talks Gay Issues with The Advocate
Barack Obama sat down with The Advocate for an interview addressing what he'd hope he could achieve in his term as president, black civil rights vs gay civil rights, his first experience with a gay person, and the lingering distrust over the Donnie McClurkin fiasco. Here are a few excerpts.
On what some have perceived as a "silence" toward gay press: "I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family. So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history."
On federal benefits: "...an area that I’m very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union. I think as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should be helping to usher in a time when there’s full equality in terms of what that means for federal benefits."
On asking same-sex couples to "wait their turn" for marriage equality: "Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, wait your turn. I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' where he says to the white clergy, don’t tell me to wait for my freedom. So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating."
On homophobia in the African-American community: "I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."
Obama Talks All Things LGBT with The Advocate [the advocate]
Posted 6:57 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Cue the Hillary wingnuts.....
Posted by: Joe | Apr 10, 2008 7:38:50 AM
Cue the name-calling Obama supporters first.
Posted by: Jeff NYC | Apr 10, 2008 7:57:30 AM
This is why I like Obama... I've heard him often times refer to the LGBT Community in his public addresses along the lines of, "We need to learn not to fear Gays." That in itself sets the stage of equality for all of us. It's something no other candidate with a real chance at the presidency has ever done. In seems to come off-the-cuff with him. To me that says a lot more than speaking directly to a specific group of people.
When you speak directly to a specialized group you are in effect separating yourself and that group from the mainstream. I don't want to be separated from the mainstream. I want to be a part of it equally - I think ultimately we all do.
Obama (mostly because he's black) knows he can't do anything that's going to "separate" himself if he's going to win the election, let alone the nomination.
I know the majority of our community wants to see Hillary win the nomination and the election. For me there's just too much baggage on that front. I am ready for change and I feel with Obama that change comes in the form of an advocate for peace for all of us.
When it comes to LGBT issues, either of these candidates will "sign off" on our rights of equality as long as it gets to the President's desk. Neither of them will threaten to veto a bill just because it favors our rights like Bush has done. The real question is which one is best for the rest of the country and the world.
Posted by: Lika Starr | Apr 10, 2008 8:01:20 AM
ABM
Anybody but mccain
ABM!
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 10, 2008 8:14:57 AM
Hmm, it's not really promising anything radical. Andy's quote seems to say that if the States bring in civil unions, then federal government should make benefits available.Isn't that Democrat policy?
Is it helpful to raise the issue of whether homophobia is worse or not in the white / black community? I feel it is not quite the point. Obama can't actually definitively comment on this aspect: statistically is would be uncertain, and I don't think it is useful to compare subcultural, geographic, ethnic specificities. Rather, I would feel that most homophobic violence is related to masculinity... men who feel threatened by 'queers'. It is about self-esteem and being made insecure by gay masculinities.
Posted by: SeanR | Apr 10, 2008 8:23:10 AM
Obama speaks directly to a "specialized" group everytime he speaks to a, predominantly, African American church. He does this because he wants solidify that voting block. As to his mention of gay issues to these groups, it is nothing more than " i support civil rights, and don't forget the gays, except for that marriage thing cause its against my religion".
Obama is that popular guy in high school
that, personally, didn't have a problem with the kids that were being harrassed by his buds, but when it came to standing with them against his friends, he chose to distance himself in order to keep his popularity.
Both candidates have an opportunity to address LGBT issues, considering the dramatic increase in gay hate crimes. It would be nice if either or both of them would make a major, televised, speech focusing on these issues. Both these candidates need to speak out about acceptance, not tolerance, of LGBT people. It is no longer acceptable to be tolerated. One tolerates in the hopes that it will eventually change or just go away. That ain't gonna happen.
I am a Hillary supporter and i will vote for the Dem nominee, regardless, but one thing Obama needs to do to convince me he is genuine, is to cease associating himself with and condemn these hate mongering, anit-gay preachers, Rev. Meeks being the latest.
Posted by: The Realist | Apr 10, 2008 8:50:58 AM
Barack Obama Doesn't Care About Gay People.
Posted by: daveynyc | Apr 10, 2008 9:09:55 AM
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't take a stand one way or another on the gay marriage issue, does he? He never says he is FOR or AGAINST it. Re-read his answer to the question. Like a typical lawyer/politician(I can't stand either), he spews a lot of rhetoric. Why can't we have a candidate who says, unequivocally that he/she is FOR gay marriage? It's not THAT hard to do, and what's more, why aren't media outlets like The Advocate demanding an answer one way or another from our candidates? I realize that for a politician to take a stance on this issue means he/she will alienate the religious right and other, larger constituencies, but come on...He could actually change history here; or Hillary, or whomever we elect as our new president.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 10, 2008 9:10:34 AM
too little, too late...Go Hillary!
Posted by: Robert | Apr 10, 2008 9:18:12 AM
Where's Donnie McClurkin when you need him?
Posted by: Brandon | Apr 10, 2008 9:19:45 AM
I like him, but those last 2 answers, yech. "Broader Historical COntext" = wait your tuen for equality. Screw that. And the last answer, " "I don’t think it’s worse than in the white community", I hope after he enumerated those factors, the interviewer said, "So if you add those factors together, then it IS worse".... because it is.
Posted by: Strepsi | Apr 10, 2008 9:27:29 AM
He has everything it takes to make a great lawyer.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 10, 2008 9:49:49 AM
I make no defense or excuse for the use of McClurkin by Obama on the campaign trail; however, how is this any worse than the use by Hillary of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail?
McClurkin had only the power to offend -- which he does -- but certainly is not going to have a position of power or influence in an Obama administration. Indeed, it is clear that Obama does not agree with McClurkin as evidenced by Obama's voting record and public statements.
In contrast, Bill Clinton had very real power which he exercised adversely to the interests of the LGBT community by the enactment of DOMA and DADT, and then in his 1996 re-election campaign issued radio commercials in the Bible Belt states bragging about how he preserved traditional American values by signing DOMA into law. And Hillary continues to maintain partial support for DOMA, and I am concerned about what role her homophobic husband would have in a Hillary administration.
I also think it's important to recognize that Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ -- one of the more progressive churches on LGBT issues -- and his pastor Rev. Wright has frequently spoken powerfully and eloquently against gay hate.
In conclusion, the Clintons have done a lot more real damage to our community through DADT and DOMA than McClurkin ever has.
Posted by: History of Gay Bars | Apr 10, 2008 10:04:14 AM
At this point I seems no matter what he says there will be skeptics and there will be racially insensitive commentary. He is winning the primary and is the most likely nominee. We are facing global warming, an intractable war, a tanked economy and a lack of optimism the likes of which I have never seen in my four decades of life and the worry is his stand on gay marriage? I want to wake up an still have a country. He is not pandering. He cannot promise gay marriage and he is not saying that it is not desirable or fair. The broad context he probably talking about is this: In 2004 fundies came out of the woodwork to vote for Bush and against gay marriage in several key states and Kerry did not even support gay marriage. They were told he did. Obama would probably would not veto a gay rights bill if it came to his desk and he would not nominate a right wing antigay judge. His church is the UCC demonintion which is very liberal and supports gay inclusion. I have two friends who are UCC ministers and they are openly coupled gay men with large urban congregations. Hillary's church is Methodist and they prohibit gay ministers. The Rev Wright that was so villified in the press is pro gay civil rights and a great human being. I have friends who know him personally and admire him..
Listen to his sermons in full not just the 30 seconds of sound bites and hear someone who has your gay back. I am a white guy who was raised in the suburbs and I am supporting Obama because he really does speak well, draw people to him and has taken no money from special interests. There are so many issue; I just want to get my country back. He will be the nominee and I support him as I would Hillary but she is unlikely to wrest the nomination at this point. They are both way better than McCain and that should be obvious. We need to unite to defeat the republicans as they have been the real enemy of gay inclusion in American society.
Posted by: Bill in PDX | Apr 10, 2008 10:04:52 AM
Bill, what planet are you living on?
"Would probably not veto?" That's comforting.
And the fact that you know two UCC ministers means the church is inclusive? What-ever!!
Define "special interest."
Posted by: Shane | Apr 10, 2008 10:18:27 AM
Shane | Apr 10, 2008 10:18:27 AM
*****************
shut it, UCC is the most inclusive mainstream church, even wright defends gays in his church, so shut it.
it amazes me to see these gays want to see obama's head on a plate because of a singer called mcclukin, but overlook the clinton for passing DOMA and DADT that took rights away.
now i know how the "log cabins" can exist in the republican party.
just like the gay clintons supporters, they too close their eyes when the republicans take their rights away from them.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Posted by: johnosahon | Apr 10, 2008 10:34:36 AM
YOU wake up.
The "McClurkin Factor" tells us that, when forced to choose between "the Gays" and the religious bigots of "the Church," Barack will always, always, ALWAYS choose "the Church."
Posted by: YrPalJoey | Apr 10, 2008 11:12:36 AM
Why wasn't Obama asked about racism in the "gay community". In san francisco there are bars where blacks aren't allowed. I would love to know what white gays say about their "black and Asian" brothers.
Posted by: toni | Apr 10, 2008 11:20:51 AM
There is only one new thing in this interview. He fortunately finally got the message that arrogantly trying to shove his concept of “civil unions” down our throat as something as good as his “marriage” is insulting at best. Would he trade his marriage for our best civil union? In a pig’s eye.
He was not asked why he & Rev. Wrong do not support full marriage equality as the leaders of their United Church of Christ denomination do. Nor why Wrong and his congregation refused to join the "Open & Affirming" program of the GLBT caucus of the UCC.
He can’t even remember the name of “My Most Memorable Gay.” The Clinton White House and Administration had more out gays than any before or since.
His excuses about McClurkingate were simply a tired and shameless rerun of the original ones, and Elevald AGAIN refused to ask, “WHAT dialogue? WHEN? WHERE? Would you welcome professional racists and antiSemites into your big tent, too? You ‘condemned’ but you only ‘disagreed’ with McClurkin.”
He was not asked about his OTHER close friend/spiritual advisor the Rev. & State Senator James Meeks who not only ran for governor on an antigay platform but voted against the Illinois gay righs bill.
He said he would not require his Joint Chiefs of Staff to oppose DADT. Meeks and McClurkin are just as homohating as they were the day before they met "Mr. Uniter."
He was not asked why he takes bows for opposing Section 2 of DOMA while still supporting the rights of states to do whatever the hell they want that it refers to.
He was not asked why LGBTs are entirely left out of his official 64-page manifesto, “Blueprint for Change—even missing from its sections on civil rights and hate crimes.
For those who believe “he gets it,” 20 years after black gay civil rights icon Bayard Rustin said that gays are “the new niggers,” Obama, like his mentor Rev. Wrong who helps PERPETUATE the spread of AIDS among people of color by perpetuating the belief that AIDS is a government conspiracy, is still playing the “we’re more shat upon than anybody card.” Senator: Is it illegal for blacks to marry whomever they want? Is it illegal for black couples to adopt children in most states? Is it illegal to deny blacks jobs in ANY state? Are blacks banned from all branches of the US military? Are blacks left out of federal hate crime law?
Have AT LEAST SIX blacks been murdered simply because they were black in just the period of time Obama has been running for President as these LGBTs were:
Ryan Keith Skipper, 25, March 14, 2007
Sean W. Kennedy, 20, May 16, 2007
Satendar Singh, 26, July 1, 2007
Talib Stewart, 25, February 9, 2008
Lawrence King, 15, February 12, 2008
Simmie Williams, 17, February, 22, 2008
Yes, Obama would be far better than McCain. But those who are still crucifying Sen. Clinton over what did or did not happen 15 years ago need to apply equal standards to what Obama does/does not say TODAY.
The rest is spin, aided and abetted by clearly entranced Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld who compounded his/her earlier crime in the previous interview as a coconspirator with Obama by AGAIN not confronting him on his bald-faced lie that he was a cosponsor of and passed the Illinois LGBT rights bill. He did once play on that team, as it were, but was not only not on the team when the game was won, he wasn’t even in the arena, having been elected to the US Senate. But Eleveld simply let his lie stand and his totally false claim of having been Most Valuable Player.
Yes, Senator, I “take you...for what [you’ve] said”—and you’ve said that you were something you weren’t on behalf of gays. Why should we believe you about anything else. Why should we believe that you will actually work for gay equality from the White House anymore than you did in the Illinois State House? Talk is cheap. But my vote is not.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 10, 2008 11:30:19 AM
Michael Bedwell/Leland Frances is once again posting as Leland Frances! How exciting!
Posted by: 24play | Apr 10, 2008 11:35:51 AM
Go the the UCC website and check out the inclusion for your self.
As for special interests: How about large retail, media and pharmaceutical companies that want to push their agenda over the average person. He has taken none of that money and Hillary has taken a lot of that money as well as McCain.
And about the use of the word probably: I can't make a promise for another person. Bill Clinton promised us a lot and then signed DOMA
and pushed through DADT which actually caused more dismissals from the armed services. I think it is very, very unlikely that he would sign a bill that is anti gay with a dem house and senate in play. It is more likely that some positive things would happen. How can Obama, a liberal, intelligent and articulate harvard grad be any worse than McCain and the corrupt agenda that has demonized and ostracized us for the last eight years? He will be the nominee. Vote dem or face real exclusion as McCain has promised to appoint right wing judges and support anti gay legislation. By the way, I am on planet earth not planet bitchfest and I can face reality as he will be the nominee.
Posted by: Bill in PDX | Apr 10, 2008 11:42:23 AM
Holy shit! It's like the resurrection. No, this is bigger than Jesus.
WELCOME BACK, LELAND!
Posted by: crispy | Apr 10, 2008 11:42:35 AM
YrPalJoey | Apr 10, 2008 11:12:36 AM
*****************
while the clintons have told you they will not only drive over you, they will force you to the middle of the road and tie you there , work a mile to the car and then DRIVE OVER YOU THREE TIMES.
i don't get it, inviting someone to sing is more dangerous than passing LAWS AGAINST YOU. i say again WAKE UP.
Posted by: johnosahon | Apr 10, 2008 12:06:19 PM
SHANE, I am a UCC MEMBER who lives on THIS planet and I can tell you as a person who is deeply involved in the Church at the NATIONAL level (I was a voting delegate to the 2007 General Synod in Hartford CT) the UCC is most certainly gay inclusive.
We were the first mainstream denomination to ordain an openly gay man in the seventies (as well as the first to ordain a woman and an African-American)
We are the ONLY mainstream Christian denomination to officially support legal, spiritual and cultural marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. This resolution passed OVERWHELMINGLY at the General Synod in Atlanta in 2005.
Even our MOST conservative congregations in the country are "welcoming" of gays and lesbians even if they aren't necessarily "affirming".
In the Florida Conference, which is certainly not the most liberal, NO new church can receive a charter unless they declare themselves "Open and AFFIRMING" of gay and lesbian people into the FULL life, service and leadership of the church.
I think that that's pretty darned inclusive.
Perhaps it's you who live on another planet, or more likely you live on this planet but feel obligated to make statements about things you know nothing about. I personally think the latter is worse than the former.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 10, 2008 12:16:57 PM
NEWSFLASH TO ALL NUMBNUTS: Pres. Clinton neither "pushed through" nor "passed" DADT. Congress did. Hate him if you want but don't embarrass yourself with historical nonsense just because it's hard to breathe with your heads up the Dali Obama's ass. Even small brains need oxygen.
And your hero, BTW, did not just backpedal in this interview on DADT but on his promise to fight for those 1100+ federal rights during his would-be administration.
“as more states sign civil union bills into law the federal government should”??? Senator: Another NEWSFLASH—that’s only NINE states so far, plus DC and MA’s full marriage. That leaves FORTY states! How long are we going to have to wait, Oh Lord Obama? If he's retreating even before he officially gets the nomination how much can we expect should he get elected. He might want to have a talk with Pres. Clinton about the ways of a homophobic Congress.
And, Jessica H. Christ, somebody, anybody give the man a copy of "The US Civil Rights Movement for Dummies." He's still rerunning that line about how Martin Luther King, Jr., et al., weakened their movement by spending so much time fighting antimiscegenation laws when IN FACT they spent very LITTLE time on such laws. The movement against them was almost entirely driven by individuals, including the Loving vs. Virginia case that resulted in the Supreme Court banning such laws.
Senator, if you're going to continue to lecture US about OUR misplaced priorities [simply in order to try to move the walnut shell of your morally indensible opposition to gay marriage equaility off the table] at the same time you deny that you're doing just that ya might wanna rethink demonstrating your gross ignorance about your own people in the process. Ya know, kinda like when you claimed you were literally conceived when your parents made love in the heat of passions about the famous March on Selma FOUR YEARS before the march happened.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Apr 10, 2008 12:35:04 PM