Why is it OKAY for Obama to say that there are "good, moral people" who are still homophobes

[ruggerson]

but it's a heinous crime to say that America is still too racist to elect a black President?

Anyone else see the inconsistency here?

For the record, I think the country is ready for both: to elect a black President and to stop second class citizenship for gays by providing them full and complete equality.

But, apparently many Obama supporters get very upset if one takes the view that America is still too racist to elect a black President.

They turn a blind eye, however, when Obama himself says that we are still too homophobic to enact same sex marriage for gay and lesbian citizens.

[Cameron27]

1. It's not ok for him to say it,

good, moral people aren't bigots and he seems to be clueless and insensitive when he makes statements like that.

[ruggerson]

6. I have heard almost no criticism at all from Obama supporters

for that statement.

I've heard an awful lot of disdain, anger, and outright bigotry from them directed at gays and lesbiand and their allies for having the audacity to bring it up and be concerned about it.

[Dawgs]

10. Then you're not paying attention.

Many of us have said that he was wrong for the McClurkin mess. I think you've selectively chosen not to notice.

[ruggerson]

14. I'm not talking about the McClurkin mess

I'm talking about things he said AFTER it. The exact quote being:

"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

There is also the time he was questioned by a reporter as to whether he thought homosexuality is "immoral" and instead of answering the question, he hopped in his car and was driven away.

Obama also belongs to the United Church of Christ. The OFFICIAL position of his church is that they support same sex marriage.

see: UCC endorses gay marriage

But, Obama himself has said he opposes same sex marriage, because of his "religious" beliefs: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

But, his very own church endorses gay marriage. So what's up with the disconnect here?

[Dawgs]

32. When i say 'McClurkin mess' I'm talking about everything.

Many Obama supporters do not agree with how he handled all of this, but that does not make him a homophobe, or does it make him someone that won't fight hard for GLBT rights.

[ruggerson]

40. Can you address my point about the UCC church?

Why has he taken a position more rightwing than his own demonination, and then defended his position based on his "Christian" beliefs?

I would VERY much like to believe he would fight hard for gay and lesbian equality. But things he has said and done, a real pattern, give me pause.

[Dawgs]

81. I don't care what he thinks personally.

He has spoken to various GLBT groups and told them that he will fight for civil unions as a path to gay marriage. That's enough for me.

[FreeState]

84. link?

do you have a link to Obama saying he wants to use Civil unions as a way to eventual marriage equality? You have stated this before but I can find zero evidence online outside of speculation and your posts.

[FreeState]

101. Kick for link

Im assuming its made up then since this is about the 10th time I have asked with no reply.

[FreeState]

114. One last kick for a link n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

46. No, it doesn't make him a homophobe

Nor is that the point of the dispute in many of these discussions. The problem is the cheery willingness to avail himself of homophobia as a binding communal force for personal gain. The problem is compounded by the evasiveness, equivocation and greasy attempts at deniability.

I've been a tireless and tiresome voice on this board about this, and have heard only the faintest feelings of remorse or embarrassment from his supporters. What's been much more prevalent is the "get over it" line, veiled accusations of this being partisan false outrage, and vague intimations of racism.

Your post here is taken with extreme sincerity, but even so, you're only saying that you don't "agreee with how he handled all of this", which still smacks of a disagreement over the salesmanship of the offense. Obviously, you're walking a fine line here, and I appreciate that peril, but the overall sense so many of us get is one of "let's move on" or "hey, look over there" or "don't shoot sheriff, you might hit me!" instead of a real mea culpa.

He can't give a real mea culpa, because he's TRULY PLAYING UP TO THE HOMOPHOBIA OF THE SOUTHERN GOSPEL CROWD that he so hungrily needed to pull away from Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. If he were to make a real, honorable apology, it'd screw him with the bigots he wanted on his side. Make no mistake about it: the 40 days of snake-oil crap is RACE and RELIGION based. He's taken many hits over the years for not being black enough, but here he's really reminding people of his being "one of the group". I give him the benefit of the doubt that this was completely unintended, but his remedy was clueless and cynical.

Personally, my bigotry just chalks this up as another example of how religion messes everything up, but we all have our own preconceptions and axes to grind.

In a way, if he was a bit of a homophobe it might even be a bit more excuseable: it would have been something that he just didn't think was such a big deal. To be the big messianic coalition builder and Mr. Inclusiveness and go along with this for the brief tactical advantage of winning a primary in one state really throws the very core of his beliefs into question. If he'd shitcan a marginalized and brutalized minority in such an obvious way--using god himself as a justification--for such a small prize, what wouldn't he do for the really big stuff?

I'm sorry you're caught in the middle of this, but I can tell you from my heart that had my candidate done something like this, I'd have dropped him like the proverbial hot potato and have felt personally betrayed. There's been some equivalent dismay, but very little.

[gaspee]

47. Does not make him a homophobe?

WTF! He is the very definition of a homophobe.

[gaspee]

48. I wonder what would happen

If Mitt Romney said "There are many good, moral people out there who are racists."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I am soooo sick of him getting a pass for his outright bigotry. Let's throw the fags under the bus - that's what Obama supporters are saying whether they think they are or not.

I will never, ever, ever vote for someone who decides I'm expendable.

[Dawgs]

80. I'm giving you a pass for your stupidity.

BTW, do you feel the same way about Hillary and Edwards; cause they feel the same way?

[gaspee]

93. Stupid, huh?

Fuck off. I'm not voting for Edwards or Clinton, actually. While none of them support same-sex marriage equality, that's really not the issue. Obama's blaming his bigotry on his christianity when his denomination supports equal rights is bullshit.

Never again will I vote for someone who finds me less than worthy of full human rights. Period, full stop. And if that means I write in a name, so be it.

[erebusman]

105. good for you gaspee

I fully agree with your position gaspee,

I cant abide by any "representative" saying that somehow its OK for some class/race/sexuality or ANY group of people to have "separate" but "equal" accommodations.

Or to rationalize that somehow people with 'morals' can still be racist or hate filled? These arguments don't float and thankfully , albeit slowly, our country has rectified these problems over the years with civil rights movements.

There are more civil rights to be fought for; and the line has been drawn in the sand. Whether you are GLBT or not ... you have a choice to stand back and recognize bigotry when it is spoken. Saying that moral people have slaves. Saying that moral people still hate blacks. Saying that moral people still believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Yeah .. none of those statements stand up do they?

Obama is a politician either he is for/against an issue or not. If he doesn't want to piss off southern conservatives then find a politician style way of saying something without saying anything at all as your answer to questions like this instead of bigotry right? Instead he chose the low road and does not deserve your vote .

Peace - and fight the good fight.

[reggie the dog]

15. good moral trusting people

can be easily manipulated by biggots who are their religious leaders. Perhaps that is what Obama is getting at. We just need to work on convincing these people not to be afraid of gay folks, pot smokers, women that get abortions etc.

[Cameron27]

73. But that's not what he said.

I don't believe that anyway, people who are swayed by the words of bigots or racists or anti-semites are no different than the source.

[roguevalley]

62. I saw Rod Serling give a speech once and he said if a man could

say the N word, he wasn't a moral man. He said if you can say hatred, if you can feel it, you aren't moral. No way, no how. I couldn't agree more. By the way, he was only about five feet tall but what a voice. What a good man.

[loveangelc]

2. Obama is not the only one who says this so I'm not sure why you single him out...

[Cameron27]

4. Who else has said that?

links please

[maximusveritas]

31. In 2004, Edwards said America wasn't ready for civil unions

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=671

Now, he says we're not ready for gay marriage.

[Benhurst]

43. That's hardly the same.

Edwards may or may not be right about America not being ready for gay marriage; but he isn't saying there are good people who are homophobic or that it is a proper position to maintain.

America wasn't ready to end slavery in 1789, 1832, or 1848. And it did so in 1865 only after a tragic costly and deadly civil war. Slavery was immoral, but for the first seventy years of this nation's history it was the law of the land and had the support of most of its people.

Obama is wrong. Good people aren't homophobic any more than they are racists.

[fightindonkey]

121. That's NOT The Same Thing. What If He Said Racists Are Moral Upstanding People?

[ruggerson]

7. Can you tell us who else has said

that there are "good, moral and decent" people in this country who are still homophobes?

[loveangelc]

11. I'm talking about America being too homophobic to have gay marriage.

Pretty much all of the candidates believe this or else they would support it.

[ruggerson]

17. But no other candidate has said that

one can be homophobic and also "good, decent and moral."

Do you think one can be racist or anti semitic and be "good, decent and moral?"

[loveangelc]

27. it doesn't matter if other candidates have said those exact words;

the fact that almost every presidential candidate is saying that most americans are not ready for gay marriage is basically the implied sentiment they all share. BTW please give me a link to where he said "homophobic people are good, decent and moral" plz.

[ruggerson]

35. Certainly

"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.”

I'll also ask you the same question I asked Dawgs above. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. Methodists don't endorse gay marriage. John Edwards is a Baptist. Baptists don't endorse gay marriage. Barack Obama belongs to the United Church Of Christ (UCC). The UCC does indeed support same sex marriage, having officially endorsed it more than two years ago.

But, Obama himself has said he opposes same sex marriage, because of his "religious" beliefs: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

What gives? He's more rightwing than his own church?

[Raster]

16. hmmm, well, could it be because HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

Just a thought....

[Little Star]

19. Exactly why he should know better! n/t

[loveangelc]

29. its also just a thought that almost every candidate doesn't believe in gay marriage either.

unless you support kucinich and gravel its the same with everyone..

[ruggerson]

44. But Clinton and Edward's churches oppose gay marriage

Barack Obama's church (United Church of Christ) officially supports gay marriage.

[loveangelc]

45. I don't think their churches not endorsing it is any reason they are overlooked

for their stance on the issue. There is no separation of church and state?

the point is that unless you support kucinich or gravel, they all believe pretty much the same thing when it comes to gay marriage. Hopefully one day it will change, but lets not act like Obama is the only one who believes gay marriage is wrong.

[ruggerson]

54. No one is saying he is alone on gay marriage

but we're wondering why his supporters, mostly good, decent progressives, are giving him a pass on his exploitation of homophobia. When Bush and Rove did it, we were all outraged. Why the pass when one of our own does it?

[fightindonkey]

127. But He Doesn't. Who The F Cares What His Church Thinks? It's Not A Church Issue

[natrat]

3. dude politicians suck-this guy is no different-he wants to get elected-pretty simple

[CyberPieHole]

5. Because Obama is pandering to homophobes...he has to say that...

How else can he excuse his involvement with McClurkin?

[msongs]

9. the great divider - boomer glbts get the double knife in the back & old ted kennedy, well nt

[Hippo_Tron]

52. How can you excuse Hillary's continued support of DOMA then?

Newsflash, they are all pandering to homophobes with the exception of maybe Kucinich and Gravel. Talk to almost anybody who classifies their political views as "liberal" in this country and they support marriage equality. That is, except for the ones running for political office. If they weren't pandering to homophobes they would all be supporting marriage equality and without a second thought support repealing trash like DOMA.

[CyberPieHole]

115. Thanks for the strawman, Hippo...

Since when did I ever say I excuse Hillary for supporting DOMA? Why do Obama supporters insist on turning a blind eye to their candidates failings?

[fightindonkey]

122. Because It Stopped The Right From Writing Gays Out Of The Constitution

It saved gays and lesbians. THAT'S WHY!

[NYC]

8. It is not okay.

It certainly is not okay with people who are not homophobes.

Equality? Justice? I guess they are not for all.

[cloudythescribbler]

12. This is a ridiculous "false light" criticism

First off, I don't know anyone significantly supporting Obama, or the candidate himself, who suggests that the very QUESTION whether this country (the white majority) are "ready" to elect a black person is intrinsically racist. Granted there are super politically correct types who will whine about ANYTHING (eg, if someone dares suggest that Tawana Brawley wasn't full of it any way you slice it, or questions whether Macedonian-ancestored Cleopatra was 'really' black. And to this list of 'political correctness gone wild' examples, I would add this whole non-issue about Obama supposedly pandering to homophobic politics.

After ASKING the question (one DU poster in recent weeks remarked that Democrats who want to win should 'vote for the white guy' (Edwards), my own answer is that I think Obama is the STRONGEST candidate of the leading Democrats AND would make the best president. Edwards' demographic argument, usually put more tactfully than the DU poster I allude to, is central to his campaign. And ALL of the last three Democrats elected president were from former Confederate states, so it isn't something that can be logically dismissed out of hand.

But my own evaluation of Edwards, including in the debate with Cheney in 04 and other contexts is that, in the long long run for US president, he would NOT hold up as well as Obama; HRC simply has too many people, including people who would otherwise vote Democratic, who won't vote for her.

Now to the criticism of this particular thread and its background.
First, to have someone sing for your tour who also is widely thought of (not without reason) as anti-gay is not the same as endorsing those anti-gay views; this is especially true as Obama has used the opportunity to attack homophobia, including in the black community. Biden has made some statements one could consider inappropriate, and (back in 84) so did Jesse Jackson himself, and there are many other examples. No one would suggest that to have Biden on one's podium as an endorser, or even Kucinich's ill-advised suggestion that he would consider Ron Paul (who I consider the racism equivalent of Donnie McClurkin) run ON A TICKET with him make these candidates ripe for attack as bigots.

As for the particular issue of 'good, moral' people who Obama is criticizing for homophobia, that kind of 'hating the sin but not the sinner' is IN THE MAINSTREAM OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT tradition.

Some people, either as Obama-haters (supporting some other candidate) and or some other agenda, make this whole issue of homophobia out to be something that it isn't.

Not that it will convince anyone already predisposed to these stretches to condemn Obama, but I am myself bi, FWIW.

The context of the 'good, moral'

[Usrename]

13. Sounds to me like you agree with the OP.

Why bring on all the insults?

[bettyellen]

22. um, the pandering to homophobes was very real, and completely shameful

maybe you could read up on it.

[ZombieHorde]

79. ummmm...

Kucinich's ill-advised suggestion that he would consider Ron Paul

I thought that this was a hoax, do you have a link?

[Little Star]

18. Good Question n/t

[IndianaJones]

20. I disagree. nt.

[ruggerson]

23. lol

:toast:

[Infinite Hope]

21. Because good and moral people are wrong sometimes. Ignorance can pervade even the informed.

No one is right 100% of the time.

[IndianaJones]

24. I think it is simpler. They are not moral. Or good. nt.

[Cameron27]

25. Sorry no,

you can make mistakes and still be moral and good, but if your living with a code of values that's warped by bigotry, then you're neither one of those things.

[ruggerson]

26. Aren't human rights a pretty basic Democratic issue?

We wouldn't say, "Well, he's a good guy, he's a church going, moral, decent person. He just doesn't believe that blacks and whites should marry each other, because he believes that blacks are inferior and the races shouldn't mix."

We wouldn't give that a pass, would we? Especially in a Presidential candidate?

[rodeodance]

28. pretty basic-----yet, not so in bush amerika

Aren't human rights a pretty basic Democratic issue?

[ellacott]

30. This is very true

[ruggerson]

37. So a person can be "good, moral and decent"

and believe that blacks are an inferior race, shouldn't be able to marry, shouldn't be able to fight in the armed forces?

That's a good, moral person?

[ruggerson]

49. ella?

n/t

[hulklogan]

33. I've never seen bigotry that was just an occasional mistake

Nobody is right 100% of the time, but bigots are bigoted 100% of the time.

[zulchzulu]

34. Do you have the quote ANYWHERE where Obama says "good moral people" can be homophobes?

Your "analysis" falls flat merely because you base your premise on a lie.

Give me the quote. It's not there.

Let's talk about Donnie McClurkin, who performed at one concert in Colombia, South Carolina where Obama was not present at the event. Obama did give a statement about McClurkin's views:

"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."

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Why does the Hillary Clinton campaign get a free pass with their homophobic support? Some homophobes who are not only on Hillary's web site, but one is even getting paid $10,000 a month:

There's Rev. Harold Mayberry:

I'm comfortable in what I believe in. I'm not rejecting people. As God loves, we love. I don't reject thieves, I reject thievery.

He's talking about homosexuality as thievery. Oh, but wait! He's on Hillary's web site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2857.

Then there's Darrell Jackson, who made this statement regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage and has renegotiated a nice $10,000 contract with the Clinton team:

Now, we know how we feel on this issue, and I've allowed my position to be known more than anybody else. I stand here
as someone who is a pastor to a congregation of a whole lot of people, and I've said it to them and I'll say it to anyone else.
My personal moral position is what I believe and what I subscribe to. I don't have to come here and try to legislate it...There
is little doubt in this body what will ultimately happen with that issue. That is a forgone conclusion.

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/sj05/20050413.htm

He's also on the Hillary web site endorsing her: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1339

Then there's Clinton's South Carolina co-chairs, John Matthews and Linda Short. Both voted for the bill in South Carolina to ban same-sex marriage.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Gay_rights_in_SC_contd.html

Then there's Bill Clinton, who signed the hateful, anti-gay rights Defense of Marriage Act into federal law, campaigning for Hillary Clinton openly. Both he and Hillary were openly for the Act at the time of his signature.

These are people that are ON the Clinton campaign web site and/or are paid by the campaign. Where's the outrage?

As for Barack Obama's 12 years as a legislator, he has proven he's not for "homophobia":

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against homosexuals constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored and passed legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Promote Gay and Lesbian Rights: Barack Obama supported legislation in the Illinois State Senate to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and public accommodations.

Support Full Civil Unions: Barack Obama supports civil unions that give gay couples full rights, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and the same property rights as anyone else.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. “We are better than this. And we certainly owe the American people more than this. I know that this amendment will fail, and when it does, I hope we can start discussing issues and offering proposals that will actually improve the lives of most Americans.” (Barack Obama on the Senate floor regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment, June 5, 2006)

Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in consultation with military commanders. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 Paid for by Obama for America language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights. Barack Obama believes that homosexuals should have the same adoption rights as heterosexuals.

Fight AIDS Worldwide: There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. Every day, AIDS kills 8,000 and HIV infects 6,000 more people. The disease is set to become the third-leading cause of death worldwide in the coming years. Barack Obama has been a global leader in the fight against AIDS. He traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease.

Promote AIDS Prevention: Barack Obama believes that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality. Obama went to a large evangelical conference in 2006 to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle. At this conservative Christian event, Obama pushed for a balanced approach to fighting the disease that includes condom distribution. In late 2006, Barack Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, which is one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS. The bill was named after Ryan White, an Indiana teenager whose courageous struggle with HIV/AIDS helped educate the nation.

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

http://www.outfordemocracy.org/docs/2008/obamahrcresponse.pdf

[ruggerson]

38. Sure, here you go

He wrote the words himself in an opinion piece in the New York Blade:

"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community.”

I'll also ask you the same question I asked above, because I've received no answer yet.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. Methodists don't endorse gay marriage. John Edwards is a Baptist. Baptists don't endorse gay marriage. Barack Obama belongs to the United Church Of Christ (UCC). The UCC does indeed support same sex marriage, having officially endorsed it more than two years ago.

But, Obama himself has said he opposes same sex marriage, because of his "religious" beliefs: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

What gives? He's more rightwing than his own church?

[IndianaJones]

39. yeah..but did he actually say they are good, decent and moral? nt.

[ruggerson]

41. He only wrote it. :)

[hulklogan]

42. I don't care if Obama "believes" that he supports the GLBT community on every issue

The fact is, he has yet to display a concern for the GLBT community through his personal actions. I won't trust him as far as I could throw him until he demonstrates to me that he actually cares.

Nowhere in this list of excuses do I see a concrete example of an action that Obama has personally taken to support the GLBT community. In fact, some of the excuses have very little to do with the GLBT community, especially the last one about empowering women to prevent HIV/AIDS.

I've given Obama and his Obamabots too much benefit of the doubt already. This democrat will only vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. The sooner we realize that the GLBT community can't rely on any politician for our rights, the sooner we will realize full equality.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Yes and no

The idea that people can be nice, caring, accepting people but that they have problems with certain kind of behavior is a fair thing to say. I truly believe in the shades of grey of life, and if someone's a supportive, cosmopolitan, nurturing and accepting person who thinks that most males are philandering, violent thugs (except, of course, for "the good ones"), I'd say that she isn't a total lost cause.

It's very interesting how people who are so incensed about any bigotry often have their own harbored prejudices, but they're okay because they're so justified. Nobody knows the trouble I've known, and it's my turn now.

Having said all that, he does have a point that some sweet, pleasant, honorable people may have a bit of homophobia--often inculcated and supported by religion--which doesn't completely render them as fiends. It's the leaps of logic and inferences drawn from this assessment that are so disturbing.

One HUGE problem is that Obama seems to truly believe that religion is the cosmic trump card of life, and if something is part of the teachings of the big supernatural, it's above reproach. This is precisely why religion should be kept out of politics: it's anti-pluralist. It's aristocratic. It is an evocation of privilege. It gives one the right to fuck other people over. It's above reproach. It's above explanation, and those who agree are "better", while those who question this superiority are ghastly moral criminals.

The other huge mistake of this approach is that he gains a toe-hold by pointing out what we can only conjure up in our imaginations as an extreme case of some demure middle-aged couple who are convivial in every way, but just have a bit of a queasy feeling about full acceptance of gays. Fine. I know some of those people, and they ARE generally good people and will even come around on this when given a little time.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS TOE-HOLD, ONCE SECURED, IS USED TO TURN OFF ALL DISPUTE ON THE SUBJECT. Donnie McClurkin isn't just "a little bit wrong"; he's an asshole. Many of the people he preaches to are total asshole theocrats who have a thorough hatred for homosexuals that they justify by their god. It's also steeped in a racism that depicts homosexuality as a "white person's disorder", and the perceived submissiveness of gay males throws black racists (yes, Virginia, they exist) into a literal tizzy of hatred against fellow blacks who would not strut with the macho power of the resilient wronged. I don't think that racism is any more prevalent among blacks than it is among whites, but it doesn't seem to be any LESS prevalent, either.

Hefty stuff here, folks, but THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

This issue plays upon religion, racism, and outright freestyle bigotry. That's why it raises such ire from so many.

Sure, a person can be pretty decent overall and still have this problem, but that doesn't justify feeding that hatred for personal gain, and this is PRECISELY WHAT OBAMA'S DONE. He's trying so hard to be part of the community that he'll smile broadly and go along with the very worst of the crowd to serves his ends. That's just plain ugly. The way it was done was also stupid. It was tactically clumsy at every juncture, replete with Clintonesque playing of both sides of the issue by bringing in a gay preacher, and the final cynical coup de grace of having the token pervert be WHITE. Hey, they "got what they wanted", after all, but for someone who's whole schtick is inclusiveness, it's deplorable.

Had his politics of hope not been premised upon inclusiveness, such brazen courting of bigots wouldn't have caused him such trouble. There's a logic to public derision, and it's displayed in every candidate's troubles.

If Dennis Kucinich was a nationalistic, family-values, religious candidate, he'd be taking hits for being a twice-divorced Catholic who's married to a much-younger foreigner. He's not that kind of candidate, so that's not an issue. (Nor should it be, since he's not that kind of candidate.)

If John Edwards hadn't made a big deal about fighting for poverty, the hair cuts, house and hedge fund issues wouldn't have gotten any real traction.

If Hillary Clinton hadn't painted herself as the steadfast champion of fighting the reactionaries, her mealy-mouthed appeasement, being on every side of so many issues and flaccid voting record wouldn't be raised so much.

There's a logic to all of this, and Obama's trying to have it both ways. Upon observation, he's rather Clintonlike in this habit of cheery conciliation, but he's played a deeply cynical game with this issue and the fact that "we're all sinners in god's eyes" doesn't mean that all sin is equal and a little "lapse" now and then shouldn't be held up to scrutiny.

Imagine if discrimination against blacks was substituted in the very same statement; there would be a thunderous outcry.

One of the sickening things about the human being is that when it feels put-upon and discriminated against, it often grants itself the right to fuck over anybody else because of being so wronged. There should be more empathy for the downtrodden, but that's just not the norm.

[antiimperialist]

50. I agree with Obama

i agree that some people may still be fixated on what the bible says, thinking that because homosexuality in ancient biblical cities that probably didn't even exist was supposedly punished by a God that may or may not exist, then it follows that it must be wrong to be gay.

You can be wrong and be moral at the same time.

[ruggerson]

53. The bible supported the notion of slavery

So, one can support slavery and still be moral?

[Capn Sunshine]

61. you're wrong, as usual

The bible acknowledges slavery. Not support.
If you drag the bible into things, you'll never prove gay people should vote for Hillary.

But your predjudice and disrespect towards gay people knows no bounds; you flog this Mc Lurkin thing every day and insist gay people aren't intelligent enough to make up their own mind. That they must all vote YOUR way.

Screw that. I respect gay people , I don't single them out and tell them how to vote because of their sexual preference.

[dsc]

slaves obey your masters

what is that if not support?

[ruggerson]

85. First of all

I'm not supporting Hillary. I don't know how many times you need to be told this.
And even if I was, it would make no difference.

Second of all, the fact that you use the phrase "sexual preference" (which is a rightwing buzz phrase, because it implies choice in the matter) means you really don't know what you're talking about concering gay and lesbian equality or our issues.

Thirdly, most gay people here have been saying exactly what I'm saying. Most gay people of color here have been saying what I'm saying. It ain't just me. If you want to try to demonize me personally because I criticize a presidential candidate's stand on human rights, go right ahead. Speaks volumes about where you interests lie.

[hulklogan]

94. I respect straight people

AND I have no problem singling them out and telling them how I think they should vote (anyone but Obama) because of or in spite of their so-called "sexual preference"

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Why is it okay for Hillary to continue to support DOMA?

[hulklogan]

55. This has nothing to do with Hillary

Why do the Obamabots always bring up Hillary when anyone questions the almighty Obama?

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Because aside from Kucinich none of them are perfect on gay rights

I'd rather have a candidate that makes bad statements but supports the right policy. Edwards and Obama both support the full repeal of DOMA. Clinton does not support its full repeal.

Obama probably should never have made that statement in the first place, because it is too complicated of an issue for a sound bite.
But if he had gone back and tried to change it, the media would have eaten him alive.

[hulklogan]

57. Again I ask, what does Hillary's position on DOMA have to do with the OP? nt

[Hippo_Tron]

58. The OP posts at least one anti-Obama thread a day

And they all serve the same purpose of reminding us that Obama made that statement and had Donnie McClurkin on stage.

[dogishboy]

59. And again - What does that have to do with the OP?

If you like, go start your own threads. It's not like that has never happened before

[hulklogan]

60. I support the OP completely.

As long as there are bigotry-apologists ready to excuse Obama's behavior, there are people who need to be reminded that bigotry should not be acceptable in this party.

[ruggerson]

82. Do you have a problem with gays and lesbians

seeking accountability from the candidates who seek to lead them?

When Obama explains himself, I'll be more than happy to listen, but as of yet, he has not.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. Trying to explain himself would be spun even further by the MSM

He probably shouldn't have made that statement in the first place but he did.

And Obama's position on GLBT rights is as progressive as anybody running with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel. He's solid on the issues and that's what I care about.

[ruggerson]

100. I'm glad your confident

I think you understand the series of actions and statements that have aroused a great deal of anger and suspicion here. Don't begrudge us our right to question a man who seeks to serve us, until we get the courtesy of an answer.

[fightindonkey]

124. DOMA Saved Gays And Lesbians, That's Why!

It stopped the Right from writing gays out of the Constitution, which was their goal at the time.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. It's not. nt

[ncabot22]

63. I think Obama has a point

There are good, moral men and women who have trouble accepting homosexuality. Maybe it is due to their religious upbringing or cultural upbringing, but some people who are good at heart have problems with gay people. Is it wrong? Absolutely. I think also a huge part of the homophobia may stem from a lack of exposure to gays and lesbians.

For example, my grandmother was a devout, religious woman. She didn't understand or accept gay people. When my brother came out, she realized she'd been wrong. She became my brother's biggest supporter and accepted his partner without question. She had not known any gay people (that she knew of) until my brother came out.

What I think Obama meant was there are good people who maybe do not know any gay people or been exposed to gay people. If they are, they will realize and understand gay people are normal, not abnormal.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln was a good person? He's a hero to many but didn't like Native Americans. As someone who is part First Nations, should I dislike Lincoln? I abhor his opinion about my ancestors but I also think he did some good.

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/issues/lincoln.html

Do you respect Thomas Jefferson? Many do but he had slaves. I think the fact he did own slaves doesn't take away from the good he did for the United States. It merely teaches us he was a human being who made many, many mistakes and took part in a brutal tradition (slavery) that many wealthy Americans did during that time. He should not be excused from blame but the good he did should not be ignored either.

I appreciate your hurt and how you feel but there are good people out there who do horrible things. Have you ever hurt someone or did something bad? Have you ever lied to anyone? Ever cheated on anyone? If not, good for you. I have (I'm not proud) and I still think I'm a good person, albeit one who has made many mistakes.

Maybe I am naive, but I truly believe that people cannot hate what they know. I think that is what Obama is saying. As for not agreeing with his church, I disagree with him on that. But I am Canadian and we have gay marriage here so I cannot understand how any country cannot offer marriage equality to all of its citizens. Our society hasn't crumbled but, in my opinion, has been made better.

Sorry for rambling.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

64. Very lovely post

I agree with your sentiments.

[Bluebear]

66. The man Obama hired to MC his concert said gays want to kill children.

That is *not* lovely.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

70. Didn't say it was.

[Bluebear]

71. Oh I realize.

[ncabot22]

68. Thanks.

:) Happy 2008

[hulklogan]

65. Being a bigot and believing that GLBT Americans are child killers

is different than making a mistake like cheating on a partner or telling a lie.

Bigotry is not a one-time mistake. It is a state of being. Bigots are not good, and bigotry is not moral. Can bad and immoral people do good deeds? Sure they can. But doing a good deed does not make one inherently moral or good.

Contrary to popular myth, everyone on the planet knows at least one GLBT person. But people shouldn't need to know a GLBT person to acknowledge their equal rights. I don't need to have a close personal relationship with people to believe they should not be discriminated against.

I'm jealous at times that full equality for every person is enshrined in your country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I've come to know that our Bill of Rights is little more than a scrap of paper with a handful of ideals scribbled on it, and those ideals can be pushed aside at will by people who do not believe in them.

[ncabot22]

67. But what about Lincoln and Jefferson

Both men considered their race to be superior to others. Lincoln considered Native Americans to be savages. Do you detract from the good they did?

You are always welcome in Canada. :) The more, the merrier. Have a great 2008.

[dogishboy]

72. So Obama freed the slaves?

This I wanna hear

And you're not telling the truth about Lincoln. He was not a racist (Here;s where you link to a site with Lincoln quotes taken out of context. It's OK. I have a book with many of Lincoln's speeched to show how you were duped)

[ncabot22]

74. I did not say Obama freed the slaves

And yes, sorry to burst your bubble, but Lincoln was a racist. If you read the link I provided in my previous post, you will see what he thought about First Nations people. He believed in the supremacy of the white race and thought Natives were savages. Read Lerone Bennett's book about Lincoln "Forced Glory".

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/30/tl.00.html

[dogishboy]

75. Very, very weak

1) You compared Obama to Lincoln. Don't be disingenous. Lincoln's faults (which do not include racism) are overlooked.....why? Because he grew up in a log cabin? Because he had big ears?

2) The link to CNN transcript in this post is full of shit. There isnt one Lincoln quote, and is made up entirely of misrepresentations which are typical of the racists (not saying YOU are a racist, just those who promote this BS) who want drag Lincoln through the mud

a) EP did not free the slaves - so what? Lincoln did free the slaves, even if the EP did not

b) Lincoln wanted to pay blacks to emigrate to Africa - This is just BS. It was a rhetorical device Lincoln used to show how impractical the idea was. You can read what he said, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, by reading his words at the Lincoln Douglas debates.

c) Lincoln called Indians "savages" - Lincoln was speaking of the conditions they lived in, as well as expressing distaste for some of thier customs. However, he felt and said that he believed that Indians had the same inherent rights as any other american

d) "He believed in the supremacy of the white race..." I just call BS on this. I'd like to see some supporting evidence for this claim

[dogishboy]

83. And I read your other link, which was an even stinkier load of bullshit

that contains not one quote from Lincoln expressing any racism towards Native Americans. An example of how slanted the article is can be found where the author discusses the "War for Southern Independence", otherwise known to non-racists as The Civil War

[ncabot22]

88. Direct from Lincoln

Taken from his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in Charleston, Illinois.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

[dogishboy]

91. Typical racist anti-Lincoln propoganda

There is nothing in those words to indicate that Lincoln believed blacks were "inherently inferior", which is the definition of racist. All of the references to white's "superiority" refer to how whites oppressed blacks.

wrt not making blacks citizens, or being able to intermarry, etc - Lincoln did not support those as a Presidential candidate because he felt those were matters of states rights. Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott opinion (which was what was being discussed at this debate) because he felt it infringed on states rights, which he explicitely describes in his response to Douglas at the very same debate.

You see, it helps to be familiar with the ENTIRE event, and not just an excerpt or two. There's a reason why Lincoln is considered a great orator and debator, and it's not because his ideas and arguments could fit on a bumper sticker.

[ncabot22]

90. The site I linked to is for Native Americans

A way to know of upcoming legislation, etc. that directly affects various First Nations. If you had read it, you would know.

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

From the link:

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

Now, I'm done with this debate with you. We are way off topic and really not adding anything to the OP.

[dogishboy]

92. I don't blame you for fleeing the scene

Lincoln's actions were not motivated by a racist belief that Native Americans were inherently inferior to white people. They revolted during a time of war. Lincolns top priority was always to keep the union together, and in his view, their revolt during wartime was treason.

Again, your claims have no credibility. No one has said that Lincoln was a saint. Showing that his actions were unfair to native americans does nothing to demonstrate racism. Imperialism explains it, not racism

[DemKR]

87. haha

[fightindonkey]

128. LMAO!

[hedgehog]

108. Excellent post. What a lot of people fail to see is that good, moral people are

teachable.

[indimuse]

69. calling all obama apologist...

where are you on this..?? let's hear it.

[dsc]

76. Here is a text book example of some of these moral people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=39155

They are now after suicide prevention programs. Lest one think they are worried about government waste it isn't that they don't work. No, it is that they have the audacity to make gay people, and some non gay people, think that being gay isn't evil. I know, you think I am making this up, so here are some links.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/07/1-800-suicid ...

With teenage suicide being the 3rd leading cause of death between 18 to 24 year olds - our government should not be duplicating prevention efforts but helping fund the many local organizations and non-profits with proven track records on prevention. In addition our government should not be in the business having access to this private and sensitive information!

Despite the fact that almost 2 million callers have reached help and hope over the last 8 years, and a government funded evaluation stating the benefits of 1-800-SUICIDE, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), a division of Health & Human Services, has decided to create their own government run system where they would have direct access to confidential data on individuals in crisis.
You might recall SAMHSA, which came under fire from the fundies back in February of last year. Agency officials were forced by the Bush admin (after the WH received hopping mad calls from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins) to remove all LGBT references from a federally funded suicide prevention conference in California and to kill gay-positive content from the SAMHSA site.

The Bushies also suggested a session on "faith-based" suicide prevention, and threatened the conference's funding. The wingnut admin functionaries backed down after an outcry for sanity from response from mental health professionals.

SAMHSA also took a big hit when its web site featured a section called "Celebrating the Pride and Diversity Among and Within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations" which flew in the face of the flat-earth science often promoted in government under Bush that seems to either ignore or condemn homosexuality. The SAMHSA link above is to The Memory Hole, btw. My original post on this was called How long before a Bush drone puts a stop to this?

The answer was 12 days. That's how long it took for a Bush drone to scrub a government web site of gay-positive content.

end of quote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

ACCORDING TO BRIAN, "In Massachusetts, anything labeled 'youth suicide prevention' is always a homosexual program in disguise. No one else is ever interested in youth suicide issues because it is not really a problem in the schools. In fact, there is no youth suicide 'epidemic' in Massachusetts."

Please do the right thing for parents and children - DO NOT CAVE-IN TO THE MURDEROUS RIGHT-WING BIGOTED AGENDA! THEY ARE CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE!

end of quote

Brian is the head of the anti gay alliance of Massachusetts.

Let me be blunt this is pure evil. It is nothing less than the idea that Matthew Sheppard is the ultimate ex gay. These aren't, sadly, the Fred Phelps of the word. These are the supposedly reasonable anti gay zealots. We can't let these people win. If they are willing to sacrifice straight teenagers just so someone, somewhere who is gay won't get a positive feeling about him or herself. This is the type of Christian we are up against. Why should we believe for a minute they will entertain the notion of compromise? At best, they don't care if we live or die. At worst, they wish us dead. Compromise isn't an option.

[ZombieHorde]

112. Awesome post.

If I could recommend your post I would.

The Religious Right is to gays what the Nazis are to Jews when it comes to philosophy. I wonder how many people just roll their eyes and think that we are exaggerating the situation. For me personally, it is easier on my heart to believe that they don't understand, then it is to believe that they do understand and just don't care.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. It's hard to justify "moral" when talking about people who would

willingly deny other people basic human rights because of who they love.

I've certainly met "nice" people who have yet to see the light on the issue. Some are just plain inexperienced and subject to the bigotries they've been raised with (You've got to be carefully taught). Others have issues of their own.

But I don't think discrimination like that, or like racism, can ever be called "moral".

[DemKR]

86. K&R 08!

[sampsonblk]

89. Answer: I think you got this all wrong

Here's why:

1. Its is more than fair to say that there were good, moral white people who were not ready for blacks to be equal to them in 1860. Robert E Lee was one. There were many.

2. By latching on to this civil rights argument, comparing homophobia to racism, you are skipping the most vital point - the genes. The subject always comes back to that, because that's the whole foundation of most any equal rights arguments.

Obama is full of shit. But not for the reasons you suggest.

[Bluebear]

95. So, being black is genetic. What is being gay, then? A choice?

[sampsonblk]

96. I am not the cause of this

The legal issues involving gay rights are going to continue to center around the genetics involved. Don't blame me. I am just pointing out the obvious.

[fightindonkey]

129. No, You're Pointing Out The Stupid. Show Me The Genetics For Heterosexuality

Why should they marry then? Same reason for homosexuals.

[sampsonblk]

138. No, donkey, THAT is stupid

It is not necessary to prove the obvious.

[hedgehog]

109. You've touched on an essential fallacy in the comparison of

racism to homophobia. Everyone agreed that race was inborn and unchangeable. Many today still believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Racism judges people on who they are. A lot of homophobes judge people on behavior. More education is needed.

[Czolgosz]

97. recommended

[OneBlueSky]

98. fwiw . . . I honestly believe that the U.S. is ready for a black president . . . but . . .

not one whose name is Barack Hussein Obama . . . sorry, that's just the reality as I see it . . .

[DangerDave921]

103. Sadly I agree. eom

[hulklogan]

104. Obama's name could be John Smith and it still wouldn't excuse his "good moral people" statement /nt

[DangerDave921]

102. Ready

Do you think America is ready for an openly gay President? I sure don't.

[FreeState]

107. And that makes bigotry okay how? n/t

[DangerDave921]

116. WTF?

Who said anything about bigotry being OK? I'm just saying what my perception of the US as a whole is; I didn't say anything about bigotry being OK. But nice try.

[Horse with no Name]

106. It's NOT okay

but it doesn't make a difference for those who give blind support.

[readmoreoften]

110. It's not homophobic to say America wouldn't elect a gay president. I don't get it.

Frankly, I think America is more than ready for a Black president. But I understand why people might question that and I don't think it's racist. In fact, I think it's absurd to say it's racist.

[FreeState]

111. If the sole reason he isnt elected is because of skin color

then yes its racist.

Same with LGBT persons - if thats the only reason they are not electable its homophobic/bigoted.

[readmoreoften]

113. Agreed. /nt

If the sole reason someone doesn't vote for Obama is because of skin color, then it is an act of racism. But I don't think that if someone believes America is too racist to elect a Black man it is an act of racism.

What I don't understand is that many consider it racist to question whether America is too racist to vote for a Black candidate, but the same people would we can't run an openly gay candidate for president because America is too homophobic. Of course, they are correct. It is unlikely that an openly gay candidate will win the presidency. And it's not homophobic to say so. If someone says "America won't ever let a Black man be president, it's too anti-Black" that isn't a racist comment. It's a comment on racism.

[fightindonkey]

130. If We Knocked Off The South Like They Wanted, This Wouldn't Be Such An Issue

The no-experience, Muslim, Hussein, Oprah thing, is his problem even more.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. There *are* good people who are homophobic. One vice does not a bad person make.

It's entirely possible to be a good person on balance, but still have some vices.

Abraham Lincoln was a racist; Mother Teresa was very conservative indeed.

I would add a qualifier like "otherwise" or "on balance" to "there are good people who are homophobic" if I were making it as a political statement, to make it clear that they're good in spite of, not as a result of, being homophobic, but it's technically true even without it.

[fightindonkey]

126. No, There Are Not Good People Who Are Homophobic.They Are Human Rights Deniers. Nazis Were Good Then

End of story.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

134. How many good people would you say there are in the world?

How many in America?

[Lurking Dem]

135. That would be 3. ;)

[Czolgosz]

118. kick

[fightindonkey]

119. I've Been Screaming About This For Weeks. Obama Needs To Get The Fuck Off The Stage!

Such a dirtbag! Such a homophobic bigot, not to mention an idiot!

[fightindonkey]

120. He Also VOTED TO FUND THE WAR!!!!!

Obama supporters are hypocritical morons.

[Onlooker]

123. It's okay because ...

... those are the people who won't trust a black man to be president, but who he'll need in order to become president. He's battling institutionalized racism.

[fightindonkey]

125. What?! Are You Seriously This Insane?

This guy said one of the worst things a Democratic candidate could say about Human Rights issues. Barack should put on a Klansman uniform!

Don't play the race card with me either! This came from his own mouth. He has continuously shown to be very homophobic, not to mention being a complete moron.

[Onlooker]

131. he is not homophobic

He is simply competing for the same constituency as Hillary because as nontraditional candidates they need to woo Independents. (Liberals will be kinder to them.) Obama's stands on gay rights are excellent. All the candidates oppose DOMA, support civil unions, etc. They are all running campaigns trying to broaden their base. Besides, as any gay person knows, there are plenty of good people out there who are homophobic because of ignorance, not because of hate. My parents were that way, but I was patient, and they came around (and in my father's last years, he'd greet my partner with a hug and kiss).

[Lurking Dem]

132. I am able

to appreciate the writings of Voltaire. Yet he also wrote "{Jews} are ... the greatest scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe ... They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair."

Thirty of his 118 essays in Dictionary of Philosophy deal with Jews and how horrible they are. In fact he described them as "the most abominable people in the world."

Yet he also said, "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."

Franz Liszt composed incredible works that I find tremendously moving. Yet he said, "The day will come when all nations amidst which the Jews are dwelling will have to raise the question of their wholesale expulsion, a question which will be one of life or death, good health or chronic disease, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever."

My point is, people are never all good or all evil. People who have lived upright, indeed moral, lives in every way can hold onto beliefs, either societal or historical, that reflect badly on them.

Obama stated in his book that he recognized his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman was etched into him by religious and social mores of his upbringing and that time would likely prove him to be on the wrong side of history in that regard.

Because he is willing to listen to arguments with an open mind and heart and is not afraid of having his mind changed, he believes there are other people out there - people who at heart are good people - whose minds can be changed through well reasoned, logical argument.

His record on supporting gay friendly legislation is sound. His belief that the government should not confer marriage on anyone but civil unions for everyone with equal rights under the law is one I have held for many, many years.

Some people don't agree with that and that is fine. They have every right to hold a different opinion and to argue theirs.


Ethical dualism is common to everyone. It is archetypal. I see nothing wrong with a belief that our choices between good thoughts/acts and evil thoughts/acts can be influenced through dialog and that societal paradigm shifts occur because of that.

[dbackjon]

133. Great post, as usual

[killbotfactory]

136. Because he's a bigot

take my grandparents, or most of the religious people in my extended family. You would think they are nice moral people, but they don't like gay people, so obviously they are gigantic immoral monsters. I ask them "do you accept gay people, yet" everytime I meet them, and if they say "no" I punch them in their stupid bigot faces.

[Lurking Dem]

137. And that gets you what?

[Lurking Dem]

139. kick