The relevant question from the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:
MTV Moderator: We asked people are gay rights issues a priority for you in deciding how to vote for president? 56% said yes this is a matter of basic civil rights, 43% said not so much other issues affect us more. How do you speak to those people? How big a priority is it for you in your campaign and I'd you if you could for you to speak to it in the context of the news over the weekend about the gospel singer Donnie McClurkin who made some comments about homosexuality that drew controversy?
BO: I think it's a priority regardless of the polls, you don't poll whether people get treated equally or not, that is something you do because it's right. When it comes to my attitudes about whether this is a priority or not I will put it at the top of the list along with many other issues, because I think it's the right thing to do.
It's true that we had a controversy a while back, a gospel singer was singing at a gospel concert on our behalf, he was one of many. And he had some views that are anti-gay, and I am disturbed about those views and I said publicly that I disagreed with them.
One the things I also said though is we have to reach out to those who have a different attitude on these issues to try to teach. We were talking about faith earlier, one of things we've been doing is try to reach out into the African American church community, and I've spoken out forcefully and clearly to African American ministers and African American denominations saying we've got to get beyond some of the homophobia that still exists in some of these communities, that's part of the job of the president is talking to people not just telling them what they want to hear but also what they need to hear.
Chris Bowers of Open Left sees the controversy over Donnie McClurkin as a fairly straightforward campaign mistake without all that much significance --- an instance of "inadequate vetting" and not a reflection on Obama's actual position on LGBT issues --- but instead of critiquing Americablog or blogger John Aravosis for inflaming the story, Bowers turns on the Obama campaign:
Claiming after the fact that this means the Obama campaign is some great big tent where people of all stripes come together and forge new alliances ignores that this only became an issue because of a mistake. The Obama campaign might indeed be such a big tent, but the Obama campaign did not intentionally invite McClurkin to sing in order to have a coalition building conversation between the GLBT community and more stridently homophobic members the African-American clergy.
Admittedly this is the least damaging narrative that could develop out of this whole controversy, and I would take it gladly over some of the others playing out in the blogosphere, but I still think it's wrong.
Although it's apparent that the Obama camp did not intend to open a conversation about homophobia by inviting McClurkin --- nor did they even intend for McClurkin to play the role of surrogate other than as a singer on a long lineup --- the gospel tour is an obvious part of Obama's longstanding and aggressive effort not only as a presidential candidate but as a public figure to try to reach out to the evangelical community: in no small part by addressing the need for compassion and realism in addressing AIDS, which means accepting the necessity of providing access to contraception; decrying the role that homophobia has played in stigmatizing the disease; and insisting that abortion is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree --- and that in a tolerant and compassionate religious community, rhetorical accusations of "baby-killer" should have no place.
So this is not a debate that Obama discovered in the course of this controversy, it's a cause that Obama has spoken out passionately about over the years. Nor is Obama's is the only campaign to have held events with public figures who have denounced homosexuality.
What We Need to Concede
But neither should we deny the clumsiness or offensiveness of McClurkin's remarks. They should be repudiated. I also happen to believe that the excessive lengths to which some evangelicals have gone to condemn homosexuality has strengthed homophobia in our community and, yes, bears some responsibility for devastating acts of discrimination and violence, such as the brutal beating and murder of Matthew Shephard.
But at a certain point we as a country, as a place that strives for tolerance and understanding, need to back away from inflaming and exaggerating these debates on social issues. The belief among conservative evangelicals that homosexuality is a sin is a belief sincerely held by many. It is not an incitement to violence nor a claim of biological inferiority. Just as the belief among women of choice that abortion should be legal should not be decried as murder, the incessant repetition of the analogy to David Duke fits into the same category. It is a question of how we can all live together in a community where disagreements about sexuality and morality will always be a source of conflict, as DPW wrote yesterday.
In the end, it is a question of how much ideological purity we demand from our party. I suspect that if every candidate's supporters were vetted and all people removed who out of religious belief considered homosexuality a sin, we would be surprised at the results. For a few examples, Hillary Clinton has been supported by Harold Mayberry, who compared homosexuality to other sins such as theft --- to insist, as the Clinton team has, that his public support was not an endorsement is totally irrelevant; Darrell Jackson; and she has appeared with Bishop Eddie Long. The question is whether appearing with any of these figures or being supported by them means that you have compromised your views --- if ideological purity requires that they be cast from the fold.
Should all public endorsements be rejected from people of faith who happen to believe that you should "love the sinner and hate the sin"? McClurkin's clumsy and offensive statements should be repudiated, but isn't there a point at which we have to let go of demonizing the other side?
Thanks to user ReligionProf for pointing out this post yesterday: Sagereader lays out a comparison between the blog reaction to Donnie McClurkin and to Obama's visit to Warren's Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Definitely a must read:
There is no way to unify this country if people on both sides refuse to be in the same space as those with whom they disagree. It is fine to disagree and be vocal about your disagreement, but you absolutely can’t make progress without even talking to each other. Both sides need to stop being intolerant and threatened by those who are different from them. We need more Rick Warrens on the conservative side and Barack Obamas on the progressive side.
Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Monthly, politically something of a libertarian but currently clearly an Obama supporter, linked to the article.
Sometimes we’re more reactionary than logical. The great thing about the blogosphere is that there are many many voices. And, at times, you find one that makes you re-think things - well, I would hope anyway.
If you think gays should turn their backs on Obama, then I encourage you to read the post before you make your final decision.
I tend to gloss over this kind of thing when I read it, so I haven’t paid the story all that much attention, but via Sully, this post at a pro-Obama blog gives pretty much the 100% best response to this howling that one could imagine.
There is a buzzing comment thread after the diary. It's great to see it getting so much attention and changing minds.
Great work, Sagereader! If you want to keep update on more response to the post. Use this Technorati page. I'll post updates.
Follow me after the jump for excerpts from an interview Obama gave with The Advocate about this whole controversy:
In the flurry of arguments about McClurkin, I wanted to try to offer some perspective:
On World AIDS Day, December 1st, 2006, Barack Obama traveled deep into Orange County, California, to visit a conference at Saddleback Church being led by Rick Warren.
Rick Warren, although outspoken on issues of abortion, happens to think that AIDS has been devastating both here at home and around the world and that we have a moral obligation to act.
There are religious leaders who show no tolerance on gay marriage, but who happen to feel that the Earth is God's creation and are more open to conservation measures than some of their leaders might suggest. There are those who, when it comes to homosexuality, believe that one should 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' --- but are as interested as anyone in providing health care to children, preventing genocide in Darfur, and stopping the exploitation of the Third World through sexual trafficking. And contrary to their Republican leaders, a lot can perhaps be moved by the argument that we are our brother's keeper and we have allowed poverty to persist at home for far too long.
