Barack Obama took some time out of his busy schedule to sit down with The Advocate‘s Kerry Eleveld.
In this exclusive conversation, the presidential senator attempts to clear up any and all confusion about Donnie McClurkin, his anti-gay ally.
In the interview, the Democrat admits that he and his staff didn’t properly review McClurkin’s past, but points out that the controversial “ex-gay” reverend isn’t a spokesman for the campaign, but only part of a larger event. Obama also points out that this McClurkin drama has no bearing on his pro-gay politics. What’s more, he’s dedicated to bridging the divide between religious and gay communities:
Part of the reason that we have had a faith outreach in our campaigns is precisely because I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate, even though we may disagree with them.
Part of what I have done in my campaign and in my career is be willing to go to churches and talk to ministers and tell them exactly what I think. And go straight at some of these issues of homophobia that exist in the church in a way that no other candidate has done.
Obama also asks that gay people judge him by his policies, not the company he keeps. So, reader, are you feeling Obama’s explanations or still flustered by his gay balancing act?
Lair
The people we keep company with are the ones who are the most likely to influence how we view reality. Obama needs to reconsider who he should be associating with.
Maverick69
Um what Obama ?
Matt
“Dialogue” with the “faith community” is, sadly, a self-contradictory statement: by its nature, a community based on unprovable “eternal truths” accepted “just because” is not likely to find those truths to be negotiable through dialogue. And any solution that the homophobic fundies are likely to find acceptable is probably NOT going to be acceptable to the GLBT community. So choose your friends, Barak, and show the courage of what you say are your convictions.
Paul Raposo
“…I don’t think the LGBT community or the Democratic Party is served by being hermetically sealed from the faith community and not in dialogue with a substantial portion of the electorate…”
So in other words, Obama believes Dems and gays are not religious and are not involved in the church, so Obama fixes this by bringing conservatives and anti-gay people into his campaign?
ProfessorVP
Like I’ve said before, Obama thinks he doesn’t know any gay people. Completely in a vacuum on this topic. By the end of the day, he will manage to have pissed off both the conservative values rubes AND the LBGTs. He’s not black and he’s not white. He’s totally green.
WWH
You just know that in private he’s saying things like, “I wish the queers would just go away.” Which, of course, is what all the Dems want.
ajax
So, will there be a Grand Wizard from the KKK at the event so he can begin the dialogue of change with white supremacists?
ajax
Ooh, ooh, maybe he should invite Armenijad to participate so he can begin a dialogue of change with holocaust survivors!! Yeah, this will be a FABulous event!
Leland Frances
A week of pissed off LGBT activists of many colors and he still doesn’t get it. Its ramifications affect gays of all races, but condemned by a multitude of his own people from the National Coalition for Black Justice, to Black lesbian writers Pam Spaulding and Jasmyne Cannick, to lack gay writers Keith Boykin and Terrance of “Republic of T”, to Black lesbian minister Irene Monroe who accuses him of “playing the race card,” he still doesn’t get it.
“It,” the core issue that remains, is that Obama does not consider homophobia and its consequences the moral equivalent of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. The fact that it’s so easy to say that he would never countenance his campaign sponsoring three days of performances by a white supremacist singer that it sounds like a cliche doesn’t make it any less true. And admirers of all colors in South Carolina and everywhere know that viscerally. Their reaction, however subconcious, is going to be, “If Barack is sharing the stage with him then McClurkin and his hate/self-hate mongering must be ok because I know that Barack would never share a stage with someone I already understand to be a bigot.”
There’s “guilt by association” and there’s “good by association” and in this case, together, they are cancelling out Obama’s credibility. It does not sink to the level of Giuliani and Romney and the other hetero fascist Repugs and so we must hang onto the common sense of voting for him should his name be on the ticket in the general election but it is inexcusable none the less.
DavidDust
Leland Frances – you NAILED IT. Obama and his people STILL have no clue why we’re so pissed.
ProfessorVP
All of which follows the breadcrumbs right back to what I said… Barry thinks he doesn’t know any gay people. Not in his family, not among his friends, not on his staff, not among those supporters or constituents who ever get close enough to tell him anything. The result: total, unalloyed, utter cluelessness.
Gays are to Barry are what working people are to Bush.
Leland Frances
GRRR! I just read the interview and am stunned that he could say, “If there’s somebody out there who’s been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is. …. there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been.”
Kucinich stands no chance of coming within a mile of the nomination but it is further evidence of Obama’s blindness that he doesn’t mention him and his pro-gay positions that were well-known before anyone had even heard of Obama. Edwards and Clinton touted their LGBT supporters and their pro-gay positions in press releases and on their official campaign sites long before Obama did. Edwards was the first to bitch slap General Pace for his “gays are immoral” statement. No other candidate has felt the need to affirm his/her heterosexuality as Obama did when he effectively grabbed the microphone at the Howard University debate to make clear he had gotten an AIDS test with his wife and not Sen. Biden.
One of my dearest friends has been campaigning and raising money for Obama for months in Florida. He just left me a message, “When you call me back, I DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT OBAMA!”
Sad. Sad. Sad.
Bob R
Based on what I’ve seen and heard so far, I think the wheels are starting to come off of the Obama campaign wagon. My thinking is, Obama will continue to slide in the polls and eventually come in third or even fourth in the Democratic field. Obama will most likely not get the nod for the VP slot, especially if Hillary is the eventual nominee. Obama’s defeat will be placed squarely at the feet of the “intransigent” LGBT community by Obama’s hetero-black and evangelical supporters. I expect very little from any of the Democratic Presidential candidates who may now be a little more cautious as a result of Obama’s blunders. I expect nothing at all from the Republicans. My hope is for a veto proof Democratic House/Senate with enough progressives to get some gay favorable legislation passed. I think Obama and his staff would like the LGBT community to go away, but leave their money and votes behind.
Jersey
This has been his “Dean scream”. Sorry to say but he’s done. Actaully with this revelation I’m not sorry. Good to know now rather than after we put him in office and he signs another DADT.
mendelssohn
You are all being very insular and shortsighted. Look at this from another perspective. Obama has a long record of supporting gay rights on every single issue, except gay marriage, where, sadly, he is not alone among supposedly progressive Democrats. Still he has a pretty good record. Isn’t it a good thing when an adversary with a position you strongly oppose on a particular issue signs on to support a candidate who is good on your issues?
Remember in 2004, Karl Rove correctly realized that Republicans could win Ohio with some black Republican votes coming from blacks like McClurkin who supported Bush solely because of the gay rights issue. Shouldn’t gay groups welcome the fact that someone like McClurkin with backward and bigoted views on gay rights obviously is not elevating his views on that issue to such a high degree that he is supporting a Republican again? Shouldn’t we welcome his support for someone who will not follow George Bush’s policies regarding gays?
Unless you think that there’s any evidence that Obama secretly hates gays — despite making an appeal to gay rights in his most important speech ever, where he absolutely could have remained silent on the issue without receiving any criticism — the reality is that it is Obama’s relatively progressive views that McClurkin will help advance by supporting Obama. It is not McClurkin’s views that Obama will advance.
Dawster
David, Leeland, I really have no clue why everyone is pissed.
i mean, they guy is trying to unite two groups that so desperately don’t want to have ANYTHING to do with each other. to be “faith based” means you’re “anti-homosexual”?? call me when you reach 2007. he pandered to us very well, stronger than Hillary did… he now needs to pander to others as well (we don’t live alone in the world, you know). He made his pro-gay points public. until he goes back on those… OR… panders to churches by saying “hey, we have to get rid of those fags”… then there really isn’t an issue here, is there?
every candidate has to do this process, strike a balance between opposing views and creatively entice voters to get off their ass and vote (except republicans because they ONLY want rich white voters). really, everyone is bitching, but who is really going to vote? only 40% of us, AT MOST.
we are one of two groups of people who have a really strong voice and who have really been ignored through the years (and last election, black voters were actually prevented from voting!). so i get what Obama is doing. is he handle it the best way?? NO, i will give you that. but at least he’s trying.
if gay issues were the most important thing in the world, i might jump on the Obama-hating bandwagon, but right now my most important political issue is getting our troops home safely and making sure America’s policies in Muslim countries improve. right now, the U.S. is providing military training to people in the middle east (AGAIN – just like with Bin Laden), we are handing out weapons and resources blindly (AGAIN), we are meddling in affairs we shouldn’t be involved in (AGAIN), and we are pissing off a hoard of 13-16 year olds (AGAIN) – some of which will carry that hate for America until they are old enough to become highly effective terrorists. THAT is my most important political issue.
and who is best suited to stop that? more rich white republican blow hards? no… please… NO MORE. a rich white robot posing as a woman? maybe… it’s possible (and i will vote for her if she wins the nomination). a black man with a funny name? yes… i think he could.
as far as gay issues, they are the second most important thing to me, and Obama is filling that far more than Hillary has (IF GAY ISSUES were first on my list, i would vote Kucinich or Gravel, BTW). Obama is trying to unite people unlike our current president. i think he’s showing his inexperience (totally give you that as well). i think this is where Hillary and Bill shine the most. but as far as saying Obama is being a sinister anti-gay manipulator?? no. you can’t argue that…
this may, however, indeed be his “dean scream”…
MyDogBen
Obama? Fuck him. He gets nothing from me in the primaries now.
Jersey
Dawster, I’m sorry but you are wrong. There wasn’t going to be a gay preacher until this ruckus started. Promoting a dialog my ass. He’s as good at spin as dear leader. This was an attempt to pander to the homophobes in the black church. There were plenty of other folks he could have picked. True colors if you ask me. So keep up your support but don’t be suprised when he pulls a Clinton.
[email protected]
Obama doesn’t hate us…just the sin of homosexuality.
Leland Frances
Dawster, none of us are served at this point by conceding the race to Hillary or Obama.
You forget Edwards who is arguably stronger than Obama in relation to Iraq [which is the second most important issue to me AFTER future Supreme Court appointments. Gay issues alone come third but are obviously involved in my #1 issue]. Edwards would begin withdrawing troops immediately and all within 18 months.
Edwards is demonstrably stronger on gay equality than Obama despite the stellar job partisans for other candidates have done making it appear that they are somehow more pro gay marriage.
Repeating: Edwards touted his LGBT supporters and his pro-gay positions in press releases and on his official campaign site long before Obama did. Edwards was the first to bitch slap General Pace for his “gays are immoral†statement. No other candidate has felt the need to affirm his/her heterosexuality as Obama did when he effectively grabbed the microphone at the Howard University debate to make clear he had gotten an AIDS test with his wife and not Sen. Biden.
At the televised forum on LOGO, Edwards said, “I believe we desperately need to get rid of DOMA. I think we need to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not just wrong now, it was wrong when it began. It’s been wrong the entire time, as is true with DOMA, exactly the same thing’s true with DOMA.” While Obama has said he’s against DOMA, he has said other things that suggests he shares Hillary’s current view that states should have the right to legalize OR ban gay marriage equality.
Edwards is the ONLY candidate to have come out strongly for TEACHING acceptance in public schools. Again, from the forum:
“kids who go to public schools need to understand why same-sex couples are the parents of some of the children. They need to understand that these are American families, just like every American family. It’s important for the kids that their peers understand what’s happening. Because otherwise, you know, children are children. And they can be mean and cruel. We as adults have a responsibility to make sure that they’re educated, that they understand this is a good thing and it’s something that we as Americans believe in and embrace.”
Edwards on the difference between his personal OPINION on gay marriage and what he would do/not do:
“I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don’t believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state.”
Edwards on what he would do if he had a transitioning transgender staff member:
“I would support them in every possible way.”
Edwards on gay/lesbian couples’ access to his plan for universal health care when they were denied joint coverage by one partner’s employer:
“I’ve made it very clear that those rights to gay and lesbian couples would be exactly the same as they would for straight couples.”
Edwards on Bush’s nomination for Surgeon General:
“In a profession dedicated to healing and compassion, it cannot be hard to find a qualified candidate for Surgeon General who sees all human beings as equals. Instead, President Bush has sought out a nominee who will divide America. Dr. James Holsinger’s anti-gay writings and beliefs suggest that he will undermine, not advance, the cause of equality and fairness in health care.”
Edwards on HIV/AIDS:
“A four-fold plan that guarantees health insurance to every American to ensure that they receive the care they need when they need it, and it will expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals before they reach later stages disabilities and AIDS. It calls for greater resources to fight the epidemic in African-American and Latino communities, where infection rates have drastically risen. And it calls for universal global access to HIV/AIDS medicine, investing $50 billion over five years to make it easier for people infected with HIV/AIDS to get the treatment they need. Edwards will also put an end to the policies that protect the profits of big drug corporations at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
Edwards will support science-based prevention strategies to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS – including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes. Edwards also promised to strengthen America’s scientific research agenda, which has suffered drastic funding cuts under the Bush administration.”
MISC:
“Edwards was the first contender with a plan for universal medical coverage, and his proposal goes further than Obama’s by mandating that every American be provided a health plan. And where Clinton would leave a significant troop presence in Iraq indefinitely, Edwards calls for a complete withdrawal. He has issued the most forceful repudiation of Bush’s ‘war’ on terror, and in July he proposed a tax hike for wealthy investors. …
…no Democrat has made a stronger play for union backing than Edwards: Since 2004, he has participated in more than 180 labor events – including a hunger strike for immigrant janitors in Miami – for twenty different unions. In 2006, while Clinton was burning through $30 million on her shoo-in reelection campaign in New York, Edwards was campaigning for initiatives to increase the minimum wage in six key states. While other candidates have little time for labor-hall rallies – the PR firm of Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, has actually engaged in union busting – Edwards has made labor a central element of his anti-poverty campaign. On the stump, he calls collective bargaining the key to “making work pay” and lifting low-wage Americans out of poverty.
“This is a true commitment on his part,” says Anna Burger, chair of the labor federation Change to Win. “He was doing this when there were no cameras watching him. We needed a spotlight on workers, and anything he could do to raise their profile, he was willing to do that. His special relationship with labor is forcing the other candidates to play catch-up.”
” – “Rolling Stone,” Aug 2007
Jersey
Thanks for that post Leland, hopefully people will come to thier senses before the primaries.
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
Some posts are startling in itself. After postings praising the Clinton candidacy, and dumbing down others, we now have Edwards being bandied about as a viable candidate despite polls that show his weakness and vulnerability.
The point is that Mrs. Clinton is the vestige hope of the corporatists if they feel that the sheeple will be lead to vote for a conservative to moderate centrist who promises to keep the war profiteers fed to the tune of billions, the WMD and Star Wars guys busy, and oh yes, Blackwater employed to safeguard those who want the Oil interests.
The Russians want Iranian oil and the Neocon Oil Magnates want it too. The nuclear shield is to let the US oil interests keep the oil for themselves. Young neocon sheeple enlisted fodder led by careerist officers will ensure the policing of the resource that world power foes need. China can buy the energy with US IOU’s and eventually they will need a pretext to start a cold war again, this time with China.
Think the worst, and follow the money, and read whom the MSM Himmler, Rupert Murdoch, has crowned as Puppet in chief. Just as you vote INDIRECTLY for the Constitutional Electoral College, they have removed the choice one more step. They decide on both sides whom can really become POTUS.
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
The most telling reason that the US was established by the oligarhs is the Electoral College. The lame excuse of parity is to conceal the fact that the popular vote has often in more than two centuries to deny the true winner the election.
Another issue was fixed, and that was the “election” of US Senators by state legislatures. Direct election is an early twentieth century constituional amendment.
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
Today, Nigel and our son and I are going on a short but needed holiday abroad.
Thirty one years ago today, I moved in with my Nigel. I was too weeks shy of my 30th birthday, and he was eight years younger. We were both our first serious love relationship. On November 7, I will be 61 years old. Upon reflection, I partnered with my soul mate. On August 11, 2003, on the 30th anniversary of my priestly ordination, Nigel and I were legally married, and is the year that our son was born.
We own a laptop, but I have promised Nigel to lurk once or twice a day and to only respond if the urges overwhelm me LOL.
daniel11211
i honestly dont believe that Obama has any problems with gays- but for some reason in my gut i think Hilary actually LIKES gays….
that makes all the difference.
Steven
I also think it’s important to hear what Senator Obama has to say on this topic:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp
Dawster
i will answer these points, and then i won’t beat a dead horse anymore (i promise).
first… i don’t think Edwards is winable… just like Kucinich isn’t winable. Edwards’ disconnect with the gays on the LOGO forum was disheartening. i think he is the better person for troop removal (now), but not for the long term… which i am more concerned about. i think he’s a better person to come up with a good health care system, but not to actually get one passed (etc.)
second… i know there wasn’t a gay preacher until this ruckus started. i’m not an idiot… i do read, you know. as anyone else who reads will know, BEFORE the LOGO forum, and BEFORE this mess, BEFORE the “obama gay emblem” appeared on his website, and BEFORE this ruckus started, Obama had been preaching at black churches about acceptance, tolerance, and the importance to help with HIV/AIDS, and other gay-oriented issues… THAT is what impressed me. this was at the BEGINING of the campaign – including one “preaching” in front of Harold Ford who was adamant about opposing EVERYTHING gay. THIS is one of the many reasons why Obama isn’t really getting that black vote like everyone hoped…
Hillary doesn’t bring up gay issues in other venues… EVER. Edwards doesn’t bring up gay issues in other venues… unless he’s asked about them. Kucinich does, Geavel does, Richardson has, and Obama does.
so when it comes to gay issues, i’m comfortable with the last group. and when it comes to overseas issues, i prefer someone who has spent a considerable amount of time living overseas (as oppose to our current president who only visited Mexico to get drunk) or those that have just visited on occasion.
BUT… ALL THAT being said… STOP attacking me. i think what Obama did get misinterpreted, i think he and his staff fucked up, and i think this may have been his “dean scream”. so all this is a dead issue.
what i can’t stand is the gay community getting up in arms over someone they didn’t support in the first place, and calling him homophobic and part of the hate-mongering elite… as if we live with the “with us of against us” George Bush mentality… This unwarranted attacking for someone none of you aren’t even voting for is getting a bit ridiculous.
Lesbian Episcopal Flight Attendant
Your Grace, Bishop RES –
Congratulations on your 31 years. What a milestone. I appreciate your postings. They are refreshing. I usually just lurk this site and have trouble with the vulgarity of some posters here. I found your posts and gave Queerty another chance.
On a flight from Boston to Halifax last year, I think that I met you and your family. You were on a flight, and you both are very friendly and approachable. Your son is drop dead cute. I could be wrong, but he looks alot like your equally drop dead cute spouse. You guys look great for your age.
As an Episcopalian, I think that if you are he, the Church had a strong but silent defender when you passed your marriage act. I hope that one day my partner and I can do what you do. I must live in Houston TX for my airline, and she and I have to live in a patch of blue in a red state.
Thank you for your support for women priests decades before it was fashionable for high churchmen like you. You have always been known as a “feminist”. Congrats again, Your Grace.
ProfessorVP
Daniel, Hillary “likes” gays? Well, Hillary “Two Presidents for the Price of One” Clinton gave us Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. The gifts that keep on giving. Hatred and discrimination, that is.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the Republicans MADE the Clintons do it. Durn Republicans!
underbear1
I fluctuate from being mad as hell to intense sadness of what might have been with an Obama campaign.
If Obama wants to be MY president he would stand with the candle light vigil, as would the concert attendees who are gay-friendly.
Why the HELL couldn’t Obama’s staff find a gospel singer who isn’t at war with queers, who doesn’t spew we are killing their children???
underbear1
STAND
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/STAND2.jpg
underbear1
McClurkin,
You better nail your CLOSET shut with 9 inch spikes…. B*TCH!
If the LGBT community finds you trickin with a man, after you F*CKED UP Obama’s campaign, you’ll think Ted Haggard and Larry Craig got off EASY.
think crucifixion, with a Mel Gibson S & M flogging as foreplay….that clear enough for ya Donnie?
Leland Frances
These are the simple facts, as much as I have been able to research them and as unvarnished as I can present them:
On ever gay issue that has been put before them equally, each of the leading Dems have the same positions. Some have zinged Hillary for implying that the “states rights†section of federal DOMA has to be respected while both Obama and Edwards have endorsed repealing DOMA entirely, However, both of them have also said “it should be left up to the states,†so repealing that part of DOMA would be moot. In fact, the entire discussion regarding its Section 2 is functionally moot because all but about four states have ALREADY passed their own versions, if not constitutionally explicitly banned gay marriage itself.
The IMPORTANT part of federal DOMA all three support repealing is that which prohibits federal recognition of any same-gender relationships of an kind no matter if the state in which they reside recognizes them. Exactly HOW they would that implement federal recognition has, understandably, not yet been spelled out. For while it would seem to be as simple as federally redefining marriage, spouse, etc., implementation would involve so many agencies and so many statutes, from the IRS to the Social Security Administration to the Immigration & Naturalization Service, etc., that bureaucratic realization would be daunting. A President, in fact, could do little nationally beyond using his/her “bully pulpit†to promote creation and passage of Congressional legislation that he/she would then sign. He/she could issue an Executive Order, as Bill Clinton did in relation to federal employee jobs [which the Bush administration has since ignored], but that would leave the majority of gay Americans, millions, uncovered.
More with my subjective opinions:
Contrary to the partisan accusations of some, my intent has always been to counteract pointless or unfounded attacks on all viable Dem candidates [it only seems I favor Hillary because there have been more attacks against her to respond to], and I have emphasized the importance of voting for whichever Dem candidate we end up with, including Obama. But the events of the past week have forced me to reconsider my neutrality in the primaries. IF I thought he was the most likely to win the general election I would STILL support him in the primary. BUT I don’t think that, so, in the same way I have discouraged votes for Kucinich or Gravel or Richardson based on their lack of viability alone, I am impelled to discourage the true believers from wasting any more time on Obama.
I might change my mind after the results in the first primaries, but I believe now that Hillary will win the nomination and it is counterproductive, even self-destructive, to continue to demonize her which only plants the seeds for another possible harvest of horror as we had in 2000 when the “all or nothing†Naderites put the Bush Reich in the White House and, eventually, tens of thousands in body bags.
I would like to see her select either Edwards or Obama as her running mate for a variety of reasons, including their positions on the Supreme Court, Iraq [however different or alike] and mostly identical positions on the future of efforts to legally realize gay equality. Whether she would, whether either would accept, is a guessing game but if either end up on the ticket with her, again, we mustn’t feed the politically suicidal tendencies of those eager not to vote because either weren’t “pure†enough. I have never understood those who believe they accomplish something by doing nothing.
Though the implications of his enormous, expanding blunder in relation to Donnie McClurkin and his arrogance in absurdly cloaking himself in the mantle of our Messiah in the Advocate interview both sadden and anger me, my willingness to vote for him in either capacity in the general remains steadfast. And I am comforted by the fact that I apparently won’t need to debate with myself over voting for him in the primary.
As much as we mourn what has unnecessarily transpired this week in relation to one candidate, we should celebrate that never before, not even in the 2004 election, have so many gay equality issues been so embraced by so many Democratic candidates [while the Republicans remain frozen in Reverse].
Imperfect, convoluted, cumbersome, and as at times immobilized as it is, there is today less darkness to curse in the Democratic Party than candles to continue lighting. There are those whose numbers seem larger than they are because of how loud they are who will continue to blow such candles out with the force of their primal screams about what happened/didn’t happen/they claim happened as recently as the 90s or as far back as the 60s and beyond. Leave them, along with the Republicans, in their dark and cobwebbed caves to gnaw upon the dry bones of their obsolete and solipsistic self-righteousness.
As for those looking for hugs more than results, I yield to the timeless wisdom of Black gay hero Bayard Rustin:
“Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly mainifest that hate. That’s our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.”
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
We three are soon to take our short holiday across the pond. We are at the airport and this is the last time I use the laptop for a time.
Nigel and I think that we remember a very attractive and helpful flight attendant who told us that she was “family and a Churchwoman too.” She doted over our son during the short flight and we remember her kindnesses.
On the TV monitor while waiting here, HUSTLER Larry Flynt announced that he had a Senate GOP scandal that would lift the dome of the Capitol and send shock waves right to the West Wing of the White House. I wonder if Senators M and G are on their knees – and for a change are there praying for a miracle.
ProfessorVP
Don’t tell me you mean M is for Mitch McConnell? You can’t mean he doesn’t have sex with his wife Elaine Chao, and an hour later is hungry for more? No, it can’t be! And is G for Lindsey Graham? Certainly not, he’s served in the military and still goes to Iraq and stays with a unit. You can’t mean he violates his own Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy!
My smelling salts! I need my smelling salts!
underbear1
Call out to the LGBT community
We can’t all be in South Carolina tonight, but we can all go outside and light a candle…LIGHT UP THIS NIGHT OF HATE!
http://www.geocities.com/nomad85013/animated_candle.gif
FoggyBttm
I’m sick and tired of politicians saying .. trust me, I’m with you .. I’ve just got to say the opposite in public. My momma taught me to trust people by their actions .. including the company they keep.
I know plenty of religious african americans .. and they’re not homophobic. Obama doesn’t need to campaign with ex-gay ministers to win the black vote.
Blech!