No surprise, no progress — black LGBTs don't exist in publications geared to the black community. Even with a controversy of this magnitude that shines a bright light on an issue that desperately needs discussion — homophobia in the black church — there's a “blackout.” Rod McCullom spells it out:
It should also be no surprise to discover a news blackout (pun intended) across major black news media and strong Obama supporters such as the Chicago Defender, WVON and EUR. Leading black gospel and Christian sites also ignore the story. EURweb's gospel site reported and promoted the concert series but reports nothing on the current controversy. Gospel City, one of the most popular black gospel music portals, reported the concert series and also advertises upcoming concerts by McClurkin and Walker, but, is silent on the current controversy.
The black non-response is to be expected, given the hisoric black church's uneasy relationship with the many black gays who pack the church choirs on Sunday mornings. “I long for the day when blacks gays and lesbians stop supporting their music,” Darian Aaron writes in his post on the McClurkin backlash. Aaron is a young black gay activist, blogger, and contributor to Clik, and also grew up in the Pentecosal Church. “And find the courage to walk out of the churches that turn a house of prayer into a house of pain.” It's a good that chuches such as Kendal Brown's Church of the Open Door and Kevin E. Taylor's Unity Fellowship Church have welcomed black gay men and lesbians.
It will be interesting to see whether the Obama campaign decides to meet with the National Black Justice Coalition to discuss this debacle, since the organization sent the presidential candidate a letter on Monday asking for a dialogue to be opened. Had Obama's campaign bothered to pick up the phone and dial NBJC, or heaven forbid, any black gay activists or bloggers, they would have known not to set themselves up for this PR nightmare.
Oh wait, that would have required common sense. My mistake.
UPDATE: If you want to listen to my appearance on the Michelangelo Signorile show on Sirius Out Q yesterday, where we discussed the whole dustup, click here or the player below (thank you David Guggenheim!).
35 Responses to “Black MSM ignores the Obama / anti-gay recloseted McClurkin controversy”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m confused about the controversy here. Isn’t McClurkin just performing in a concert that the Obama campaign is sponsoring, as opposed to having some sort of influential/advisor role? Does it seem strange to anyone else that we’re requiring our politicians to have nothing what-so-ever to do with people with whom we disagree? And to go even further, it seems like McClurkin is supporting Obama’s run even though Obama has a progressive record on LGBT issues, as opposed to Obama compromising his LGBT platform in order to court McClurkin. Isn’t that a good sign? Isn’t it good when progressive politicians win support from unlikely sources without capitulating to them?
He hires homophobes so clearly Obama’s the homophobic candidate. Since I’m now convinced that Obama is the worst possible candidate for gays, I’m switching my allegiance to Mitt Romney. At least I’m pretty sure he won’t be hiring any gospel performers.
I think Hector’s comment illustrates why so many are ignoring the story. At this point, there’s simply nothing Obama can do that will have a positive outcome. And the quieter the story is on the blogs, the less chance it will break out into the mainstream media.
So a lot of Obama supporters who don’t mind throwing gays under the bus wish the story would go away, and so they set up silly dilemmas like Hector’s Obama/Romney Dichotomy.
I think that the Obama campaign is also hoping that the controversy will blow over, which is why they haven’t contacted the NBJC.
Also, this story illustrates why Democrats are reluctant to turn their campaigns into traveling revival shows, the way Republicans often do. It’s not because they’re anti-religious, but because so many leading religious leaders and performers hold bigoted views.
If your base consists mostly of bigots, you can get away with that. But not if your base values tolerance and diversity.
And the quieter the story is on the blogs, the less chance it will break out into the mainstream media.
It’s broken out into the mainstream media already. AP and Reuters have both run stories on this in the last 24 hours. Fox News of all people just put up a story which even analyzes this from basically the same angle Pam is looking at here: “Black Versus Gay Politics Has Barack Obama Tied in Knots”.
To me this isn’t about being Black or half Black like Obama. This is about standing up for your fellow man.
It is on Slate, too:
http://www.slate.com/id/2176548/
Obama is the most progressive of the electable candidates, so clearly he needs to be taken down. If all his service providers need to pass an ideological litmus test before his natural constituents will support him, we’re done for.
A pilipina once used this analogy to describe her people in america: crabs in a bucket. All the crabs tried to escape the bucket, but when one looked to be succeeding, the other crabs pulled him back down. Forgive me if this analogy does not seem to apply here, all those who feel thrown under a bus.
I agree with Alphonse, but that doesn’t make the lack of coverage in from Christian or black publications any less conspicuous or, unfortunately, predictable. While I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with what Obama has done here, there are issues here that need to be discussed. I think Obama simply knocking him off the tour and the reaction that would cause in the certain parts of the black Christian community would be counteractive to having any kind of dialogue. By shoring yourself up from offensive ideologies, especially between two communities that seem as though they could and should be allies, you don’t help anything. I know some people see merely having him on the tour as homophobe pandering, but, while I’m sympathetic to that view, I don’t quite see it that way.
Thanks for the link, catherine. More crabs in the bucket. They don’t say who’s preferable, of course. Whose candidacy are they supporting, I wonder — and why?
Finally, Catherine at Poverty Barn quips: “I quit Barack Obama forever.” And she’s not the only one: “Well that should alienate pretty much everybody Barack needs to win the primaries and the nomination,” says Blogenfreude at Agitprop. “Can we declare his campaign dead?”
Catherine provides another fine example of c-i-a-b:
Poor Barack. Only “half-Black” to progressives, but “all-nigger” to bigots. He never had a chance.
I have a follow up post over at my pad now. The Obama camp offered up having a gay pastor open at the concerts to, I assume, offer a voice of tolerance.
A snippet:
Pam, absolutely. Hopefully, he’ll actually do that at the event. I just don’t get why people are so ready to denounce him before he even gets the chance.
“Pam, absolutely. Hopefully, he’ll actually do that at the event. I just don’t get why people are so ready to denounce him before he even gets the chance.”
I thought about starting this off with a comparison about what would happen if a candidate had a Neo-Nazi, Klansman or other bigot on their tour, but what’s the point. I think a lot of folks have accepted the idea that gay rights aren’t as compelling as the rights of other folks, so why complain.
Gays are just a litmus test, after all. Not real, live human beings worthy of respect. If a Democratic candidate wants to pump up his numbers with a anti-gay bigot, who cares? It’s not like he’s hating on real people, after all.
Just a bunch of litmus tests.
Hector–
Yes, it’s silly to dump a candidate just because he’s touring with a bigoted performer. Obama’s position on gay rights is not in question, and it’s not like this guy has a policy-making role.
Clinton’s husband signed the hilariously named Defense of Marriage Act. Should she be disqualified? And I’m sure we could find a South Carolina crony of Edwards’ who has expressed intolerant opinions about gays, or immigrants, or Muslims, or whoever.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s right to pretend that there isn’t a problem when Obama starts touring the South with an outspoken bigot, for reasons that Will outlines.
If a performer with ties to the Klan wanted to support a very progressive candidate with a proven record on race issues and who was willing to speak out on them in front of a crowd not disposed to accepting that kind of message, I’d be wary about it, but still able to see the possible opportunity there, I think. And I think the homos are as human as anybody! For whatever that’s worth!
Will, you want Obama to reject this poor misguided gay who was molested by relatives twice as a child, and irrationally blames the perverts for his gayness. Why?
Even if McClurkin were the quintessence of pure evil, why should Obama reject him? Obama is a Christian, after all. Consider Mark Chapter 2, Verse 15:
While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners sat with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him.
16 Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
17
Jesus heard this and said to them (that), “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”
I was at the Obama rally on Boston Common last night. He didn’t mention the Massachusetts vote for marriage equality. Neither did Governor Patrick, who supported it. I’m thinking - pure suspicion - the word was out to can it on support for gay rights. Out of all the things he could have mentioned, it was conspicuously absent, as was support for abortion rights.
Overall the speech was a success, but not for those of us looking for a strong progressive message. More liberal than Hillary? Sure. What Democrat isn’t? A true progressive? Nope. Kucinich is the most progressive, followed by Gravel and Edwards.
Did Edwards give up his opposition to gay marriage? I hadn’t heard that.
Some interesting outrage and tortured logic on this thread…
My take: Obama spent a good long while as the liberal Man on the White Horse. He was the One. He would change the game, save the Republic and bridge all the gaps. A few months into the campaign and it’s becoming clear that he’s just another politician, and not a very good one at that.
A lot of people are going to have a hard time letting go of the myth. In the end, it might be a learning experience. A way to bridge the gaps through realizing what the Republicans went through with Bush.
Will, you haven’t told us what Obama should do about his socially unacceptable supporters. Insult them to their faces, like Lee Bollinger did to Ahmadinejad?
This reminds one of the central fact that few queers will acknowledge. Religion is our primary oppressor.
Hector: I don’t know where you got the idea that Obama is a “progressive.” Progressives are to the left of liberals and Obama is a center-right politician.
libhomo, I’d never heard anyone describe Obama that way. Why come?
No, Edwards still supports civil unions - just like all the other candidates except Kucinich and Gravel. It’s his position against nuclear power and his win of the largest number of union endorsements (at least SEIU) that put him to the left of the remaining candidates.
I’d also remind you that Obama’s constant religious rhetoric is alienating to those of us who don’t believe in sky fairies. There’s no support there for the atheist, agnostic and freethinker communities in this country, so please stop acting like he’s this breath of fresh air. He *wants* to play up his religious ‘credibility’. If for some people him bringing along a bigot while campaigning is an issue, I can’t blame them.
Oh, like Giuliani
“Will, you haven’t told us what Obama should do about his socially unacceptable supporters. Insult them to their faces, like Lee Bollinger did to Ahmadinejad?”
The whole point of Obama is his moral foundations. He’s the guy who will rise above the partisan politics and cynical positioning and create the politics of tomorrow, etc., etc. It doesn’t work if he’s just the same as Clinton or Edwards, but slightly less stained.
Believe it or not, it actually used to be fairly common for politicians to conduct their public lives in strict accordance to a set of philosophical, political and moral principles. There were the always present hypocrits and scume, but many leaders have conducted their public lives strictly in accordance to their publicly stated principles. They may have been total shits in their private lives, but they lived and governed according to their principles.
We’ve lost this in American politics. Obama’s shine came from his being an outsider who showed a decent chance of returning to that not-so-distant past. His record in the Senate and on the campaign trail have worn that shine pretty thin.
I’d also remind you that Obama’s constant religious rhetoric is alienating to those of us who don’t believe in sky fairies. There’s no support there for the atheist, agnostic and freethinker communities in this country, so please stop acting like he’s this breath of fresh air.
deep6, I’m an agnostic leaning towards atheist, myself, and I don’t find it alienating in the least, though maybe I just haven’t been paying attention. I don’t have a problem with him being a Christian or reaching out to a black Christian constituency, a community he came out of, himself. Just as, despite being black, I don’t have a problem if he wants to reach out to a rural, white constituency. Just as long as he does stand by his progressive principles, that is.
I keep wanting to giggle at the headline. Obama/McClurkey would be very controversial, in a trashy fanfic ex-ex-gay kinda way. Pam, you identify as a geek– did you do that on purpose?
Well, enjoy Senator Clinton as that candidate, because that’s what you’re getting. Pretty fucking depressing.
Fair enough, Aman. I spoke too generally. His rhetoric is alienating to me.
My problem with him isn’t his religion as we could get much worse in any Republican. My problem with him is his continued pandering to the religious ’sensibilities’ of voters of any race. We’ve had such a torrent of religion in the White House and we all have seen its effects. I think the absolute *last* thing this country needs right now is more religious evangelism in politics or more definition of our nation’s moral direction through Christian scripture. I want a politician who, whatever his (or her) religion, basically rejects invoking gods as a means to appeal to the public, and as a basis for public policy. THAT would be progressive. And that’s one of the big reasons why I support Chris Dodd. He practically never mentions his religion or invokes the name of god or Jesus when talking about public policy. I love him for it.
Note to all anti-theists: a man who lies and foments war is not a Christian. W. is no Christian, but I’m starting to think that Obama just may be.
Here’s some basic Christian doctrine. Which of you identifies this doctrine with Bush? Who disagrees that this would be a good basis for public policy?
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Well, Obama isn’t running for Best Christian. He’s running for President.
These are not identical positions. There are even those who’d argue that they’re incompatible, depending on whose interpretation of ‘christian’ is being used at the moment and which historical context is being applied. In any case, the state of Obama’s soul is irrelevant when considering whether he’ll be an effective Executive. Wasn’t Jimmy Carter a good christian?
Not this again. Hector, neither you nor anyone else gets to decide with any sort of definity who is and is not a Christian. All one requires to meet the mantle of title ‘Christian’ is to self-identify as one. That’s it.
Denial, denial, denial.
And I have yet to meet an atheist on this site who’s “anti-theist” as that would indicate the person is somehow “against” people who practice a religion. I, for one, am not and would not be, as that would alienate me pretty badly from my familyand many people I care about. I do, however, think belief in deities is absurd and will criticize such practices frequently.
Obama is not responsible for the actions of his supporters, but if one group of supporters is disturbed by the actions or beliefs of another group of supporters and seeks to criticize Obama for it, well, that’s politics. If Obama had hired this guy, we’d have Marcotte-Edwards the Sequel.
Suuurrre. Let’s try this out: I believe in drowning kittens, but I’m still a Christian. I believe in cutting off the heads of homeless people and using them as soccer balls, but I’m a Christian, just because I say I am. No, this isn’t working for me.
I would say that to be a Christian, you would first have to respect Christ’s teachings, and make a good faith effort to adhere to them.
Yep, that’s how it works. For example, would you consider Thomas Aquinas a Christian? He believed in torturing heretics. Do you agree that torturing heretics is Christian behavior?
Actually, I should say he strongly supported capital punishment for heretics. This largely came in the form of a torturous method of death, but I’ll split the hair and change the example. Is putting heretics to death Christian behavior?
I was unaware that heretics were put to death, so I looked it up. Secular governments executed heretics, beginning with the Emperor Theodosius in 382. The Church was limited to excommunicating them. Aquinas believed in giving them a chance to come back to the Church, but if they relapsed they should be killed. Heresy was a perversion of the faith, so executing heretics preserved the faith.
The question is: is it better to jeopardize the salvation of many than to whack a few heretics? We don’t have the same perspective nowadays, because heresy is widespread, and secular governments, no longer believing in salvation, have gotten out of the habit of executing heretics. But I think in Aquinas’s time, heretics were worse than serial killers: a serial killer ended people’s earthly lives, but a heretic endangered people’s eternal lives.
Stop it, Hector. You know the government was the executive arm of the church. They operated in tandem. The church hunted down heretics and the state burned them alive. This happened to countless women, pagans, scientists, deists and others, through the Reformation targeting anabaptists, lutherans and other Protestant sects until the early 1800s.
Amazingly, Thomas Aquinas read the very same Bible you do. Likely in Latin, so I’ll allow for some translation errors, but you both are reading the same gospel of Christ and yet are taking completely different moral directives from it: you say practice tolerance and love; Aquinas says if you don’t believe as I believe, you deserve death. Isn’t it interesting how you, a Christian, can take a completely different message from the Bible than another Christian? Don’t you think it’s possible someone from your own time could read the Bible and take a very different message from it than you do - and still be a Christian? It’s not like it’s the most contextually consistent book.