I was peeved when Barack Obama decided to throw his hat into the ring for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Not because I thought he was a bad candidate, but because he'd made a solemn promise--twice--to Illinois voters that he would not run for another office before he had completed his full six-year term. Then this summer, in a fairly blatant attempt to out-macho the rest of the Democratic field and suck up to the military-industrial complex, Obama came out with a ridiculously overstated, hyper-macho foreign policy manifesto in Foreign Affairs that did get me wondering whether he was a candidate I could consider supporting for president.
That question has now been answered. In the negative. The Obama campaign has asked Donnie McClurkin, a homophobe and a bigot, to headline a concert at which Obama will campaign in South Carolina this weekend. McClurkin, who also sang at the Republican National Convention in 2004 is on record as vowing to "battle 'the curse of homosexuality'" and claims that he was able to change his sexual orientation through a conversion experience. Well and good. I won't criticize McClurkin for his personal views about his own sexuality. But I'd really appreciate it if he'd stop trying to tell me what's wrong with mine. And I'd really love it if Obama would drop McClurkin like a hot potato from his campaign event schedule. He should never have been on it in the first place.
It's not like McClurkin's anti-gay views were any secret. They were widely reported two years ago when he sang at the RNC. I presume that Obama, or at least someone on his campaign staff, has at least heard of the Washington Post, which is where I found the quotes in question. Ergo, I have to conclude that either Obama and/or his campaign staff knew about McClurkin's views and decided to give him a stage on which to air them in a blatant attempt at pandering to homophobic Pentecostal voters in the South Carolina primary (virtually none of whom are likely to vote Democratic, by the by), or else they either failed to display due diligence in checking out McClurkin's background before giving him the Obama seal of approval or, worse yet, they were simply too inept to notice that putting him front and center at an Obama campaign event was likely to alienate the gay community (which is, for better or for worse, highly likely to vote Democratic).
Yesterday, Obama's staff put out the obligatory "I disagree with his views but support his right to hold them" statement:
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 of 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.
Obama's got a good press secretary, I'll give him that much. The statement hits all the usual notes and hits them forcefully. Unfortunately for Obama's chances of winning back the gay community, his decision to keep McClurkin on the tour speaks far louder than his finely crafted weasel words. One does not "fight ...to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division" by embracing a vocal opponent of tolerance.
Some have tried to portray this as a "big tent" issue, but I'm simply not buying it. There is no tent big enough to hold bigots, homophobes, racists, segregationists, or anyone else who is categorically unable to accept the fundamental dictum that what consenting adults do in private is only their business and no one else's. Because to do otherwise is to vitiate the central clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--without which Barack Obama would not be running for president and Donnie McClurkin would be picking cotton as the property of some white planter:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(Emphasis added)
You will note that the amendment prohibits the denial of "the equal protection of the laws" to any person. It doesn't say "any person that thinks like Donnie McClurkin (or the legions of allegedly homophobic single-issue black voters in South Carolina whom Obama was trying to court by putting McClurkin on the tour in the first place)." It says "any person." And any person who can't support that is not welcome in my tent--or in my political party. No candidate who thinks it's OK to use such a person to pander for votes is going to get any kind of support from me.
Ergo, Senator, you have lost any chance of attracting my vote for president next year. And unless you drop McClurkin from the event immediately, and issue a full and unqualified apology to the gay community for having cynically thought you could get away with using him for crass political purposes, you'll have no chance of getting a second vote from me when you run for the Senate again in 2010.
Comments