Funny. When I was in the closet, an extreme conservative and Christian, I would literally cry myself to sleep some nights praying to "God" that if this isn't what he wants for me, to take it away.

Worked wonders. But hey, I can't complain. Once I realized everything I was raised to believe was horseshit, my life suddenly became a hell of a lot better. Now I'm gay, atheist, liberal, and a pretty decent slut. Word.

But you need to stop smoking, Mr. Poe. Cigs, not pole.

I just read this on Americablog. Sweet lord, Obama. See how little missteps can snowball? These little things make me think he's not quite ready for prime time.

I like Obama generally, and I can see both sides of this issue. But frankly, as a gay, I'm hyper sensitive to these sorts of things--especially since we're consistently tossed under the bus time and time again. Jesus Christ, y'all. If we don't make noise and stand up for ourselves, it's painfully obvious nobody else will. Trust me. I witnessed it here in Michigan in 2004. And it continues. . .

@2

How did you know my quitting was an utter failure? Hmm?

I'm going to try to quit again real soon. Once I'm done not quitting. Which will be real soon.

Obama needs to remember:

"Power in defense of freedom is greater than power on behalf of tyranny and oppression."

and distance himself from that self hating puppet.

fuck in peace.

He should find some gay friendly gospil type to replace him. Deflect the anti-religious argument while being pro-gay.

The fact that Obama is even considering touring with this guy makes me sick. God, we really are going to have to settle for Hillary aren't we?

Okay, everyone, now that you've vented here GO AND EMAIL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN and tell everyone else who feels the same way to do so as well. The only way to get Obama to change his mind is to remind him--in large numbers--how much support--here, in the state where's he's the top money-maker--he will lose because of this bad decision.

@8, I already did and asked for my contributions back if he goes though with this (not like that last part will happen but it felt good to say it)

This still is depressing: Time to watch "Cosmos" with Carl S. on DVD! Hard-core science and athiesm!! YEAH!!!!

Like I said. I'm voting for the Green Giant's penis. I mean come on. If there's anything that can run this country, it's what this dude's packin'.

Mr.Poe, you have radically changed forever my impression of the Jolly Green Giant

Am I the only one who saw the headline and thought that Hillary was calling out Obama on this? I was really impressed until I saw it was an acronym and not initials.

Sad, just sad.

The HRC is the world's crappest organization.

Obama's got a singer appearing ONE TIME at ONE EVENT -- not a "tour" -- who is going to sing, not preach -- something he's won a Grammy for -- and all the gay panties are in a bunch.

The fact that this "anti-gay" preacher is supporting Obama despite Obama's loudly pro-gay-rights positions should be celebrated, not condemned. Obama has the power to move the religious African-American community in your direction, but instead, you're pissing on him.

Very stupid. Very sad.

To me, what's annoying is that he's having ANY Gospel singer perform. Talk about screechy, annoying, over-hyped BORING music.

I believe that if H.R. Clinton had had this same singer/preacher perform she would be celebrated for "reaching out" to the religious Black community. People would congratulate her. Alas, when Obama does it he is vilified.

"The fact that this "anti-gay" preacher is supporting Obama despite Obama's loudly pro-gay-rights positions should be celebrated, not condemned. Obama has the power to move the religious African-American community in your direction, but instead, you're pissing on him."

Totally OTM.

It really sucks that us cool progressive people fall into this stupid trap of viewing our opponents as caricatures instead of as humans.

We're not going to be effective activists until we can generate some compassion for those who disagree with us.

We're also Christian organization in Belltown! We've been helping street-youth for the past thirty years, at least that's what we want you to believe. Basically, we're despicable people. Writers of The Stranger, please expose our shortcomings. We deserve it.

@3:
Hyper-sensitive indeed. Sounds like many people are, but only to this slight, since Hillary seems to get away with the same kind of pandering. This is a really, really stupid issue to get in a snit over- which is exactly why HRC is jumping into the fray. God forbid those people actually DO something for gay rights. Let's all just have a big expensive fundraiser about it instead, shall we?
Honestly people, elevate the level of debate or shut up and sit down.

p.s. Didn't Hillary try to get this guy to go out with her?

Fnarf -

Actually three concerts in SC from what I've read.

I thought McClurkin was only performing at one of them. Doesn't matter. It's still stupid.

Catalina, if you're going to vote on the basis of good music, you're going to finish in last place every time. There are lots of things worse than gospel music, believe me; I wonder what Mitt Romney listens to at home.

Mitt listens to Bruce Willis. Especially after a good papa-carries-kid episode with Tagg regarding homosexuality.

The HRC is good at what it does: being mainstream to keep fag faces in front of the politicos in Washington. They also keep relatively mainstream to make some of us other a-holes look positively insane with "we want it now" and so on. It's the way politics is played in the giant donut hole of a federal capitol that we have.

Who I'm actually more disappointed in are our "mainstream" candidates- Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the like. They've all become pussies in not standing up for what's right but for what's "convenient" to their political agenda at the time.

I was a fairly large Obama supporter when he first came around because I thought he might be the guy to take the discourse in this country to another level- ie lets make this a country we're all a part of and one in which society contributes. The more money he raises, the less I believe this to be true.

Now I'm no Clinton lover. In fact, if elected I think she'll take do a lot of the same shit her husband did, very little of which forwarded the efforts of LGBT people in this country. So I'll keep being the town asshole and prodding them in the ass to do the right thing with regards to our civil rights.

Speaking of which, on a state level why are we giving our politicos and others a fucking pass on any of this? We have a significantly Dem legislature, a Dem governor and the only rights I've seen have been discrimination acts that have already been passed by other states as well as a "domestic partnership" law that for the most part I can contract around except for that part where it says that if my fat ass is taken out by the Number 7 bus, my partner can sue.

With this next legislative session, it's about time for us to hear what the fuck they are going to do, if anything, in Olympia this next term. They claim to have a plan but I for one haven't seen any of it yet.

As for many African-American preachers, they seem to be all for the Dems except when it comes to LGBT rights. As another slog member put to me the other day, Bruce Harrell is active in the AME church in Seattle. Their master organization, issued these statements about their feelings towards equality towards LGBT people here:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/4957.htm

Seems like even our local politicians have issues. Now I'm torn between a Venus that changes her story around after getting popped by a DUI, or her opponent that belongs to and represents as their legal counsel organizations that seem to have an anti-gay stance towards how they treat people in their church. While I appreciate where people are coming from with regards to Obama, I'd sure like to know where someone who wants to be on city council in the #2 city percentage wise in the country with a gay/lesbian population feels about that. I need to know more from Harrell how he feels about us homos and will we spend the next 4 years dealing with horseshit on a council level as its directed towards the LGBT community.

At least HRC can keep on top of that, I guess.

llllllllliink!

Fnarf Darling, did I say that I was voting based on musical choice? Call me shallow (because I am) but I'm not THAT shallow. My shallowness is deep and wide. Sort of like Old Man River.

I tend to agree with you in that this is yet another Big Gay Drama. However, I was not sold on Senator Obama to begin with, and this does seem to strike a false note, as it were. Surely his people could have done better research???

@12, Totally agree, the HRC=Human Rights Campaign and Hillary Rodham Clinton is very confusing. Maybe slog should use HRC only when it's the Human Rights Campaign, and Clinton when it's Hillary Rodham Clinton? I somewhat remember that article/post about saying Clinton is ambiguous because of Bill, but we say Bush even though there are two, so maybe if newspapers (and slog) just start only using Clinton then other people will as well. at least ideally.

Obama is the most electable Democrat; the Democrats, including Obama, are much, much better than their Republican counterparts on gay issues. Conclusion: stay the course with Obama.

The HRC is more or less in bed with Clinton. Their moral outrage toward Obama is not to be trusted.

So I've thought about this more. The HRC is wrong to ask for this event to be cancelled or for the singer to be kicked to the curb. I think that Obama's statement distancing himself from this guy is enough. Senator Obama won't be on the stage with the performer, and he's made it clear that he doesn't agree with him.

Plus, this guy isn't making policy and isn't an advisor to Obama. FWIW.

#13 is correct. #14, you've just insulted a vast part of the country. Besides, Mr. McClurkin is so notorious among gay activists that if you did a search online you'd find that few of them even knew who he was before this blew up, or why he was invited, or his having been sexually abused as a child, or his frank talk about believing that that sexual abuse was why he sought love through gay sex... and after not finding that love, turned to God. In other words, only Keith Boykin and other gay/lesbians of color knew or cared about him -- and many of them enjoyed his music, and some of them (unlike Keith) didn't care that he called himself ex-gay.

A young woman at ameriblog stated that this fake anger was just another example of white people trying to tell black people what they can and cannot do. Several posters at HuffPo called out Earl Ofari Hutchinson as a Hillary shill, then brought up the hypocrisy of damning Obama while staying silent on other candidates who have the support of TRUE anti-gay voices; many of them the same pastors who are going to be at this event, or support it. Several bloggers are wondering if this isn't really an attempt by the Clintons to separate Obama from the black churchgoing women voting bloc.

I've read histrionics at Democratic Underground and KOS that McClurkin, and thus Obama, are encouraging the suicide of gay youth -- and are thus death merchants -- through McClurkin's insistence that he became straight through the power of prayer. Me, I had to read a blog by Randy Thomas to understand just how much of a double standard it is for GLBTs to say that it's possible to be transgendered, but not to be ex-gay. McClurkin is a guest of the conference; Obama is one of the conference's sponsors. Both Obama and McClurkin have done good for the gay community. To go screaming that McClurkin is encouraging the death of gay youth is a baldfaced lie. To say Obama has tossed gays under the bus is laughable considering the gay community tossing TGs under the bus for ENDA. This is just politics.

This is a manufactured 'blowup'. The people for whom McClurkin are performing enjoy his music, and are there to enjoy his performance and his spirituality, which is a spirituality they share. They are NOT there to make gay white people happy. Obama is doing a good thing, and if he's able to outreach to two segments of the population which are ignored by their mainstream counterparts even when the votes are being counted, then good for Obama. If he can bring everyone together, in spite of initial differences, that's fantastic. But something tells me, there are folks who do not want a uniter. They can only 'win' if people remain divided, by false information and keeping the barriers up.

honestly, i don't know what to think of all this crap. ultimately, my primary vote in florida won't even count, i'm in grad school so i don't have any money to give to candidates, and i'm just going to vote for whichever democrat makes the nomination, so i'm not exactly in a position of power.

I emailed the Obama campaign yesterday and informed them that I have withdrawn my support for him and will not support him in the primary. I will NOT support any candidate who courts the anti-gay vote.

Too bad, Obama. You've thrown away the gay vote in exchange for a handful of votes from bigots. Hope you enjoy them.

Dave Coffman, people give a pass for the same reason regular Republicans initially gave a pass to Bush. Hopes, dreams and koolaid. Thank you also for bringing up what really happened during the Clinton years, Dave, in regards to gays (and blacks, while we're at it). I loved the Clinton years, myself, but we shouldn't be performing the kind of hagiography Republicans perform for St. Ronnie.

I've heard this over at HuffPo, from one 'JimR': "On the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Harry Reid pulled a fast one. First, Reid pulled the amendment from the floor, and told everyone it wouldn't be put up for a vote for weeks. So Obama left to campaign in New Hampshire, as you said. The very next day, Reid suddenly put the amendment on the floor for an immediate vote.
By the way, did you know Reid's son works for the Hillary Clinton campaign? "

I don't follow the news much. Anyone else heard anything deeper about this, and can confirm or deny the implication Jim is making here? Because that implication makes it look like a certain segment of Democrats is only too ready to backstab the other segment of Democrats. But maybe we should have already known that, after the Rep. Jefferson fiasco. Say what you want about Republicans, they put on a great united face. Meanwhile, word on the street is that Nancy Pelosi is threatening to remove John Conyers from the chairmanship of the house judiciary committee 'if an impeachment inquiry were even opened'. How many people snowed themselves that she didn't really mean what she said before the election, that there would be no impeachment sought?

But I'm supposed to be worried that a Grammy winning well-received pastor and gospel recording artist is performing with other pastors and gospel recording artists in a venue where he's a top billing? I'm supposed to be more worried about that, than over the records (or lack thereof) of Senators and Representatives who were voted in to represent our voices? Pastor McClurkin is just one voice among many in the black christian community who share similiar stances, a stance that gays should NOT be discriminated against in housing, jobs, loans or anything else, and can hold civil unions... but that marriage itself is a religious institution and should remain that way, and homosexuality is a sin forbidden by God, not man -- a community which sees no contradiction at all with that stance, and is better reached towards as an ally in that regard instead of made into an enemy. McClurkin brought himself, his voice, and the testimony of his life to the RNC *and* DNC. Pastors who are a lot less tolerant towards gays than McClurkin have had Democratic hopefuls fill their pews for the photo ops and the cash. McClurkin is not the only attendee on the conference's bill to have his beliefs. He is the only out (ex-)gay. McClurkin is an excuse.

Coalition building means working with people you don't agree with to find common ground everyone can rise from. You might even soften one another's stances. But this is turning into a 'gays versus blacks' war, which is just going to fragment everyone further. It shouldn't. Now is the perfect time to dialogue, and find that mutual ground, not run from one another. Who benefits most from such a fragmentation?

And why are so many gays running (or claiming to run, at any rate) so quickly from Obama? I think it's because they never really intended to support Obama in the first place.

#19 JB, the Washington Post has an article where McClurkin sets the record straight, and other newssources are picking up on it. McClurkin sang at the 1992 Democratic National Convention -- does that make every Democrat in attendence a virulant homophobe? I guess there was that little something called the Defense of Marriage Act... and don't ask don't tell.... but the creeping meme of McClurkin as some kind of rabid rightwing shill is false information.

Do not drink that kool aid.

The pastor whose name is being bandied about as a Hillary Clinton supporter and close friend i Harold R. Mayberry, who said that homosexuality is like thievery. But I guess since so many gays hate her, that that doesn't count. I'd like to know what the fascination with John Edwards is. His stance is that gay marriage is wrong and can't support it, but civil unions are acceptable. Obama is pilloried for that, but gays want to rush into Edwards arms, now? What has he done for real outreach, beyond hire some gay bloggers? If he gets the nomination on Hillary and Obama's backs, I can only shake my head and say 'I told you so'. Democrats talking the talk, but not walking the walk come crunch time -- just like in Maryland.

It is really hard to believe that anyone would find it a hard to swallow, but an acceptable byproduct of Presidental campaigning to tour with snake oil salesmen.

Oh, sure, do what you gotta do for the greater cause. Don't wait to screw the perfect, settle for the good. Making inroads to assimilation even with people that despise you will make for a better tomorrow.

That doesn't mean that Obama should be given a pass to associate with this zealotry. No candidate should go uncriticized for making questionable choices like this. When candidates speak at Bob Jones University, it certainly catches ire. Remember the maccaca incident? How about the touchy issue of confederate flag waving?

It is not political correctness that we should fear - it is the suppression of dissent and censorship of people that do not agree with politicians that mingle with groups that associate gays with murderers in the interest of being elected.

Let's see...Clinton supports states rights, Civil Unions are considered an acceptable form of separate but equal, and gospel is being used to justify bigotry on the campaign trail.

What year is this? Will this asinine and willfully ignorant country EVER grow up?

Fnarf - you help make it ok for bigotry to persist in all forms when you accept the unacceptable.

Anouka, It high time we had a serious candidate come out and say that they don't think homosexuality is wrong and then defend their position. We should not be on the defensive about this. Being electable doesn't mean agreeing with the majority on every issues (look at Bush), it means having strong principles and values. One of those values is acceptance of diversity. Its something most Americans share and its high time we framed the debate in those terms.

Hanging out with idiotic ex-gays simply reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a changeable behavior. It also reinforces the idea that its ok to believe stupid things if you do so in the name of religion. As if adding layers of mythology to prejudice and ignorance some how makes it better. While I think in an ideal world religion would not matter at all in an election, if its is too matter, I would rather my candidate stick to religion as a spiritual force and not as a source for laws and governance. Religions track record in such things is, lets just say, not so great.

Personally I could care less why McClurkin believes what he does. So his imaginary friend told him being gay is wrong, mine sometimes tells me to trip old people. His beliefs are unacceptable and should be condemned by progressives. Of course unlike his friends in the anti-gay movement we don't want to make laws against him.

@21, "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" and "Come, Come Ye Saints."

Fnarf would feel differently if he were a homosexual. Just sayin'.

But Fnarf still has a point.

hallelujah! finally white liberal racists like jonathon have a rationalization for why they aren't supporting obama.

Well, sure. You guys use your left hand, right?

But seriously, folks: he's just a singer in the band. He's not "hanging out" with Obama; they will probably not even meet backstage. He's not going to be preaching or writing any policy. Do you know who's in Clinton's band, and what their positions on the issues are?

Giffy, you say "high time we had a serious candidate come out and say that they don't think homosexuality is wrong and then defend their position." How does this sound:

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country… I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”

I think that GLBT people need to stop hanging their hats (and their political future) on the notion that homosexuality MUST BE inborn in order to be acceptable. Rather than argue over whether you're born that way or not, what you should be arguing is that IT DOESN'T MATTER! By birth or by choice, homosexuality is still a "natural," "moral," and legitimate identity and/or behavior. Let scientists and fundies debate all they want--it's not relevant to the fact of homosexuality or the injustice of discrimination. You shouldn't have to argue that "I had no choice." Even if you did, the choice is an acceptable one under our law and under any sane system of morality. What if you could change who you are? Would you? And would that "choice" be made because it's right and "normal," or because our society makes being gay so unpleasant and painful? Let Donnie McClurkin believe that he's "cured"--and then let it be known that you have no need of the snake-oil....

So what if McClurkin believes nonsense? Just laugh at him. If Obama hired a gospel singer who was a Creationist, would anyone's bowels be in an uproar?

first, like @40 states above, i'm in favour of equal rights if someone chooses to be gay or if they were born that way. or if they were born gay and choose not to "be" (act on it).

second, this doesn't seem like a big issue because he is not "hanging out" with him, let alone agreeing with him or shaping policy with him. he's clarified his views while reaching out.

finally, all the major candidates have had equally "bad" or worse associations with other people.

"hallelujah! finally white liberal racists like jonathon have a rationalization for why they aren't supporting obama."

#38, go fuck yourself. How dare you accuse me of being a racist. And how dare you accuse me of racism because I stand up for myself and my community against the bigotry and homophobia of someone like McClurkin.

If that makes me a "racist", then I guess I am not the only one.

stand up for myself and my community against the bigotry and homophobia of someone like McClurkin

Sure, you love black people. Go, stand on your tiny soapbox. Your fears that an Obama presidency would herald a wave of anti-gay bigotry are surely justified. Puff out your puny chest and crow about your courage.

Look, McClurkin hates himself. Show a little pity for a fucked-up, self-hating gay. You're the bigot if you think a gay man like McClurkin doesn't have the right to earn a living.

Is it just me or does that article say: "Obama will not be present on the so-called Embrace the Change Tour"?
What, is he supposed to interview everyone even tangentially related to the campaign about each and every political position they hold? Watch out! The janitor is anti-abortion! It's petty bullshit like this that leaves us with only the most bland, centrist, focus-grouped-out-the-ass candidates to choose from.

That's America baby!

If you want to stand up for "your" community and if that community is the gay community, please recognize that the gay community INCLUDES people of color. If you stand up for ALL gay people, you must stand for queer blacks, latinos, asians, mixed race people and all non-whites. Which candidate will do best for the WHOLE community. Is it Clinton? I believe that it is Obama.

If we want a candidate that is electable, that candidate must reach out to EVERYONE. If a homophobic, self-hating, religious man wants to support Obama--a candidate who supports gay rights, we should welcome him and his money. He knows that Obama is going to work for gay rights and he STILL supports Obama.

Good point, Papayas.

Wake me up if HRC ever calls out HRC.