Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Laura Bush Dons Hijab | What He Said »

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Barack Obama Isn’t Homophobic

posted by on October 25 at 13:55 PM

But, says Obama, lots of African Americans are—so why shouldn’t he appear with ex-gay bigot Donnie McClurkin at a campaign rally in South Carolina? Lots of African Americans are anti-semetic too, so I guess it would be cool for Barack Obama to make a campaign appearance in Louisiana with David Duke?

And guess what? Donnie McClurkin may not be all that ex-gay after all.

RSS icon Comments


On this is the interview of the year:

Only you would know?
I would know that it's six inches and small. Not because he told me but because I saw it.

Was he circumcised?

Posted by blaire | October 25, 2007 2:12 PM

I LOVE this interview. Love it love it love it. It has that special blech factor. Fabulous!

I can't believe the good Rev with the voice of an angel was bashing the gays the ENTIRE time he was being fucked by some guy. Perfect. Just perfect.

Posted by Michigan Matt | October 25, 2007 2:15 PM

That's a pic of McClurkin? He's cute!

Posted by idaho | October 25, 2007 2:19 PM

I don't know. Would Obama appear at the same event as Jimmy Carter?


However, Donnie McClurkin is not the homophobic equivalent of David Duke. What's your next nod to Godwin's Law, a comparison of McClurkin to Hitler?

Posted by keshmeshi | October 25, 2007 2:20 PM

No foreplay? Boooooooorrringggg!

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 25, 2007 2:26 PM

i think any homophobia in the african american community pales compared to the racism in the lgbt community. this relentless stigmatization of african americans is really getting old. this guilt by association for minor members of the obama campaign when dubious members of other democratic campaigns aren't being called out. i've said it before but white homophobia scares me a whole hell of a lot more than any other.

Posted by Jiberish | October 25, 2007 2:39 PM

If the Dems keep this shit up into 2008 they probably will manage to loose to to the GOP. Seriously, the base of the party will simply not vote in November.

Posted by Just Me | October 25, 2007 2:39 PM

what on earth is "anti-semetic" ... you mean anti-Semitic, right?

Posted by andy niable | October 25, 2007 2:47 PM

this post is mis-leading. barack obama did not say that that african americans are homophobic. the Joint Letter from the African American Religious and LGBT Leadership Teams (not written by obama) said that homophobia exists in the african american community...they go on to say that the "only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together" i find this attack on obama to be so focused on african american homophobia that really slanders an entire community. you don't like obama and his inclusion fine..don't extend it to his whole community.

Posted by Jiberish | October 25, 2007 2:53 PM

from all this uproar, you'd think barack obama was "co-president" when DOMA was signed into law.

Posted by Ryno | October 25, 2007 3:07 PM

If you donít lie down with dogs, you are MUCH less likely to get up with fleas.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 25, 2007 3:26 PM

I think George Will said it best today in the Washington Post, with his anti-semiotic column.

Not that any of the pro-Clinton/Guilani MSM cares what we think.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 3:53 PM


Are you saying that a few gays won't show up to the polls over this non-issue? That's hardly going to hand the election to the GOP. Everyone else in the base knows what's at stake. They're not going to stay away because one presidential candidate asked a homophobic gospel singer, who supports the candidate despite said candidate's support of GLBT issues, to sing (not speak) at an event, where the candidate will not be appearing. Most of the Democratic base is not made up of idiots.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 25, 2007 4:19 PM

Dan, stop being so damn lazy. It's beneath you. I hate to have to keep repeating it but get your head out of Aravosis's ass and look at the facts.

I can get behind this statement.

We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

We also ask Senator Obamaís critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?"

It's a fair question. Which would you prefer, Dan?

Posted by Kevin Erickson | October 25, 2007 4:34 PM

Dan, come on. Obama has added an openly gay minister to the tour and has a better shot of acting as a reconciler between these two seemingly unreconcilable sides than any politician I've ever seen. A politician who stands militantly for one constituency at the expense of honoring another (narrow-minded as they may be) may appeal to the fighter in you, Dan, but in effect would be doing little more than preaching to the choir. If biased people are ever going to learn to accept the LGBT community, they are going to have to put down their defenses first--canceling McClurkin will only make their defenses more rigid.

If you really want respect for the LBGT community then you might try thinking before you react. You are speaking out against the one candidate who is actually capable of moving this fight forward.

Posted by Shannon Murphy | October 25, 2007 6:14 PM

Hey Shannon and Kevin--fuck the hell off.

It's absolutely within the right of a political critic like Dan to examine what a candidate does, and with whom a candidate spends his or her time. I know I certainly won't waste my vote on a candidate who thinks there's such a thing as an "ex"-gay.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | October 25, 2007 7:52 PM

Jesus Christ. The racism on this blog is overwhelming. African Americans are no more homophobic than white Americans. And last time I checked the people in power were WHITE, so all these anti-gay laws--written and voted for by WHITE people. So, white folks look at yourself and look at your own community. White people are homophobic and to put that shit on Black America is just plain racist.

Posted by Papayas | October 25, 2007 8:16 PM

Hey Boomer, it's nice to see that you know what the fuck you're talking about. Oh don't know what the fuck you're talking about. My mistake.

Since you obviously didn't read my entry: I never said that Dan doesn't have the "right" to examine what a candidate does--I merely disagreed with the conclusions he has drawn. And as his reader I have every right to say that...or don't I? Sounds to me like you're the one lacking tolerance.

Posted by Shannon Murphy | October 25, 2007 8:25 PM


When and where has Obama said that he endorses ex-gays?

Posted by keshmeshi | October 25, 2007 9:18 PM

John Aravosis has an awfully thin resume for a progressive activist. Dr. Laura, Ford Motor, and Bill Gates all seem unscathed after Aravosis's brush with them. Also, at age 43 he's either too young or too old to be an angry ranter. He's the left wing equivalent of the angry people who call into "hot talk" radio programs.

Posted by obama is not the antichrist | October 25, 2007 9:22 PM

Hi. I'm somebody who usually posts quite a bit to the Slog under another moniker. I have something to say, but unfortunately I need to be extra-special-anonymous to do it, because some people know me and my moniker.

Obama seems like a great guy, no worse or better than the other candidates, but I have to say something about Donnie McClurkin.

Whenever I hear him say that being abused caused him to become gay, or indulge in the "gay lifestyle" or whatever term he uses, I go a little out of my mind.

You see, I'm the adult victim of child sexual abuse. My abuser was my stepfather. I've been seeing a therapist for several years about the abuse, and I'm doing pretty well.

But it didn't make any more or less likely to become gay- because, of course, that's decided in your genes, long before any abuse occurs. As it happens, I'm straight. My experience didn't have any effect on how I deal with LGBTs, because that's a function of who you are and what you believe about judgment and compassion. Which, hopefully, is also decided long before the abuse happens.

I'm really sorry that Mr. McClurkin was abused as a kid. But for him to use that abuse to impugn gays is reprehensible and just represents a continuation of the pain and damage caused by his original violation. I hope in time that with spiritual and emotional guidance he will realize how wrong his statements really are.

One more thing, if anyone is still reading. I can't speak for other victims of abuse, but every one of those "Every Child Needs..." posts is very painful for me to read. On the advice of my psychologist, I avoid news stories about child torture or murder. I never follow the jump, but sometimes the details in the "front" page are horrific. Not to sound whiny, but sometimes it's been so bad that I've had to question my commitment to being active on the Slog.

If you good folks at the Slog could be a little more careful about leaving the details until after the jump, I suspect I'm not the only person who would be deeply grateful.

Posted by Some Dude | October 26, 2007 12:04 AM

" didn't make ME any more or less likely to be gay..." Sorry about that.

Posted by Some Dude | October 26, 2007 12:06 AM

And Dan, you're not racist, yet you have Bell Curve-proponent Andrew Sullivan as a "Friend of Slog" and quote him nearly every day.

Until this changes, you have no moral standing on this issue.

Posted by Chas | October 26, 2007 2:44 AM

Just wanted to add that the preacher Senator Obama added to balance the good Rev. McClurkin is a white preacher. From what I've been reading on African-American lgbt blogs, this seems to be another bone-headed move by the Obama camp.

It's not that I think Senator Obama is anti-gay. He doesn't seem to be. This whole episode has just seemed like misstep after misstep. And that's too bad.

Posted by Michigan Matt | October 26, 2007 3:50 AM

mi matt: Right, who would ever take a white gay preacher seriously. To counteract the homophobic McClurkin, you need a homophilic gay preacher of the exact shade and hue as McClurkin. Then and only then will the gay matter be able to annihilate the anti-gay matter, expelling McClurkin into the depths of outer space, thus saving Obama's candidacy.

Posted by fear of a gay planet | October 26, 2007 8:01 AM

Touring with anti-gay bigots may work in SC, but it may not work in Maryland, a state with a large African-American population that Barack may try to court:

More than half of Marylanders would prefer that convicted murderers get life in prison rather than the death penalty, and nearly six in 10 support allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Posted by Dan | October 26, 2007 8:03 AM

Touring with anti-gay bigots may work in SC, but it may not work in Maryland
Precisely. By hiring one of many gospel singers, Obama's subtly (but not too subtly for the Aravoses of this world, nosiree bob!) signaling his alignment with anti-gay bigotry. He's already preparing his plans for post-election internment of gays, with an eye to harvesting them as a source of edible protein.

Posted by soylent gay | October 26, 2007 9:49 AM

Some dude @21:
Just wanted to let you know that I read what you posted, and I'm glad that you told your story. I had never thought about Dan's child abuse stories in that way. He posted another one today, if you are able to post basically that same thing in that comment thread (without reading the details of the abuse) I think it would be helpful for folks to know.

Posted by Papayas | October 26, 2007 1:07 PM

Lots of African Americans are anti-semetic too..

um, FACTS please.

Posted by hunh? | October 26, 2007 2:37 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).