It may be two steps forward, one step back for Barack Obama‘s presidential campaign.
The Democratic Senator earned praise this morning for including gay folk in his Ebenezer Baptist address this weekend. That could change, however, when homos hear that Obama snagged an endorsement from Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, a long time spiritual adviser to President Bush:
Caldwell said Saturday that he’s endorsing Obama’s presidential campaign because of the senator’s “character, confidence and courage.”
He emphasized that his support is personal and not tied to his job as pastor of the large United Methodist church.
The pastor, however, said he has informed his congregation of his presidential choice and that Obama may even pay a visit to his church.
“I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team,” he said. “I will be making visits on his behalf.”
Those visits most probably won’t include any gay community centers – unless it’s to spread some reparative therapy. Rumor has it that Caldwell endorses anti-gay “cures” through his congregation. The website explaining his ex-gay ways, however, has mysteriously disappeared.
Mr. Bush does not object to Caldwell’s endorsement, of course…
1) What the fuck is a presidential “spiritual adviser?” I know that the Clintons and Bush Daddy had them, and that Nancy Reagan had her astrologist. Do we need to make this a cabinet post so that we can vet them?
2) Enough with these black conservatives who pimped for Bush suddenly backing Obama. They are intellectually bankrupt, and their endorsement means nothing. It is either based on race (Obama is Black like me so I like him!) or religion (Obama likes Jesus and so I like Obama!). I can’t imagine any other reason why anyone could support both that dumb Shrub and Barrack Obama. Neither approach carries any weight in my book.
When are people going to wake up and realize that Obama is just a panderer, willing to embrace vicious homophobes, republicans and other odious people in an attempt to get elected?
Remember his tour of South Carolina with the gay-hating gospel singer last fall?
I’m African American, but I prefer John Edwards or Hillary to this unprincipled weasel.
Bravo Siobhan, I second that. The parallels between Obama and Reagan to me are striking. In 1980 the voters were trying to elect Santa Clause by electing empty suit Ronnie, The same thing can be said of Obama supporters. They seem to be voting for something that really doesnâ€™t exist (a giant fix for the republic and that one size fits all). If only.
hisurfer, I totally agree with your Point #2. Although were I inclined to see secret byzantine conspiracies everywhere (in which case I would be more likely to be a Ron Paul supporter, of course), I might suggest that this does not represent a break with the bush administration for this guy, but rather a calculated effort to undermine Obama by linking him to bush cronies and conservative religios. It’s no secret the repubs want Hillary to get the nomination: who else, republican or democrat, could do more to unite the rightwing religious nutjob wing of the republican party with the social moderates, fiscal conservatives, and establishment types?
Besides, before we all damn Obama as a hypocrite, it doesn’t look like he SOUGHT this endorsement–it was volunteered. And we only have caldwell’s word that he’ll be making appearances and “talked to Obama’s people.” There are, after all, endorsements, and endorsements.
Is there a reason why you feel a need to tell us your race? You could have simply ripped into Obama and said you preferred Clinton and/or Edwards.
Emb makes some good points. Religious black folk who support Obama do so knowing his stance on gay issues.
I have to go with emb here. just because people endorse someone, doesn’t mean the political candidate wanted their help. is everyone in the public eye now required to clear their statement with said candidate before speaking publicly? so much for freedom of speech.
and what is a political candidate suppose to do with this? say “no, i only want CERTAIN votes… yours… yours… yours… not yours… yours…”? that’s insane. people can endorse whomever they please, doesn’t mean the candidate ENDORSES THEM BACK.
while people are all looking at the distraction, Obama is giving a speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta against homophobia and bigotry. THAT was Obama’s answer. He’s not pandering to anyone… he is talking to a black Baptist church on our behalf… and not for the first time.
hells kitchen guy
emb’s right. If some anti-Semite or racist or homophobe endorsed Clinton without her asking, would it be her fault?
Alan down in Florida
Sorry Dawster – haven’t you ever heard the saying Actions Speak Louder Than Words? Obama consistently says one thing and then does others that contradict what he’s said. And now with the endorsements of old line politicians like John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy he is becoming the candidate of the white liberal establishment – hardly the mantel someone running on a platform of change should be wearing. He envisions himself as the new, black, Democratic Reagan. Scary thought. And if you think lack of experience is not a deal breaker I have just one name for you – George W. Bush. He had no experience and it still shows 8 years later.
You all need a dose of perspective. While you’re acting snooty about the fact that Obama has a few highly religious supporters, Obama is backing the “unbanning” of funds for needle exchange programs which would save lives in our community… whereas Hillary Clinton has said that that she couldn’t “maintain it politically”, despite the recommendations of public health officials.
Sorry, but I think the fact that a Black candidate is getting endorsed by Black religious leaders — some of whom, incidentally, don’t like homosexuality — is really a non-issue for the LGBT community, diverting our attention from what the candidate’s issues are on LGBT issues.
In fact, the Clinton campaign is actively encouraging their contacts in the LGBT community as a talking point, in part because they have the worst record on things that actually matter to us. Nevermind that they too are endorsed by religious leaders who have spoken out against homosexuality.
If you want to know where the candidates really stand, I suggest you read this endorsement by Jerry L. Cade, M.D., Co-founder and Co-medical director of Nevada AIDS Research, and a prominent LGBT advocate in Nevada.
You can also read Barack Obama’s HRC questionaire here:
It’s been tricky; until this Saturday when Edwards and Clinton confronted Obama with his worshipful admiration of REAGAN, which he admited, I gave him slack. No more!
If he admires that obscene jackass who subverted nearly every positive thing that America stood for, he’s a hypocrite to the core. I judge someone by both his enemies and his friends: both Powell and this homophobe preacher are embrassing associations; wait till Condi joins in. Those are republicans with forceful beliefs . He is not so ignorant as to let those associations fly. without comment.. If he openly admires Reagan, that’s just a contradiction to everything he presumably stands for.
“Obama consistently says one thing and then does others that contradict what heâ€™s said.”
I think you’re misinterpreting inclusivity for contradiction. There’s nothing contradictory about having a campaign that reaches out to unite Democrats *and* disillusioned Republicans, gays *and* religious leaders, and says “we want your support.”
I’m a personally a *LOT* happier that disullusioned Republicans and Christian voters are finding their way to Obama, who talks about political reform, responsible government, and appeals to the positive aspects of Christianity for helping those in need and for social justice, rather than having them gravitate to Huckabee, who equates homosexuality with beastiality, and who talks about changing the Constitution to make it more god-friendly.
Do you *REALLY* want to applaud the actions of Hillary Clinton for running a tightly partisan campaign that doesn’t reach out to people, leaving them nowhere else to go except the to the Huckabees and McCains of this world?
Religious Americans and social conservatives might be scary at times, and there might be a world of difference between our community and theirs, but they have energy and drive, just like us. We’re all much better off if that energy is channeled productively, towards things that help unite us, rather than ignoring them and letting those who would divide us channel it for their own purposes.
THANK YOU MARK K.
i wish that LGBT issues were the ONLY issues on my mind, but they are not… even so, Alan, you would need to provide specific examples before i even know what you are talking about.
otherwise, try taking any of the many online tests that ask “which candidate is right for you”… answer the questions and find out who you should be supporting. right now, it’s a media Newsertainment feeding frenzy. Hillary is getting attacked for saying NOTHING. Obama is getting attacked for doing NOTHING. regardless of what is flying around, find a candidate and stick with it, but please be ready to back up your choice with sound examples.
OK, why doesn’t one of you PhotoShop fagz get busy and mutate O’Bummer’s purple ears onto this guys head….
BURN THAT INTO YOUR VISAGE AND IT’LL NEVER LEAVE
Butt seriously, reassuring that fagz are just as gullible as the rest of the losers when it comes to supporting a candidate who has done very little except talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk pander pander pander pander pander pander
BTW, Obama went on Good Morning America this morning and made it clear that he never said that Reagan’s ideas were good, as Bill falsely characterized them… only that they questioned popular wisdom and changed the status quo.
It also shows George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s former ally and confidante, being pretty open through his words and body manner about his belief that once more, Bill Clinton was lying to him.
Is Bill Clinton going to stop with the ugly attacks and smears of Obama?
“It depends on what the meaning of stop is,” he said… a direct reference to Bill Clinton’s evasion on what the meaning of the word “is” was, when he denied an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
The video of Obama’s appearance and this whole exchange is available here.
Salt Pond Sally
Am I the only one who saw the Obama supporter, standing two people from the candidate, wearing a big red Turban.
Yup, that’s christian!
“Am I the only one who saw the Obama supporter, standing two people from the candidate, wearing a big red Turban.
Yup, thatâ€™s christian!”
No. That’s inclusive.
I strongly recommend that everyone watch Obama’s speech yesterday in honor of Martin Luther King, as it’s all about inclusivity and unity for social justice.
In it, Obama said:
“If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been honest to King’s vision of a beloved community. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll have to admit that we’ve scorned our gay brothers and sisters, instead of embracing them.”
Barack Obama said that, at the very pulpit that Dr. King preached at, in Ebenezer Baptist Christ in Atlanta, Georgia, surrounded by some of this country’s most prominent black religious leaders.
… and you talk about the fact that one of his supporters hates us? He *KNOWS* that. He admits to it. And he’s fighting hard to change that.
Rather than posting about what someone else believes who happens to support Obama, why aren’t we talking about the bold stand that Obama is making on our behalf, in the heart of the Black religious community?
Why don’t we acknowledge that Barack Obama’s words and actions could help to transform the black community to accept and embrace homosexuals, rather than shun and stigmatize them, pushing them towards unsafe , closeted gay sex on the down low?
Obama has shown real leadership and real empathy and compassion to our community… the kind that can transform our nation.
Sure, Hillary Clinton supports gays too, but only to the extent that she supports everything else… when the polls indicate that its safe to do so.
Here’s a link to the full text of the speech, for those interested.
It’s funny how quickly we forgot the 90’s and the political reality of the time. If there would have been any other president other than Bill Clinton we would be living under a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and an outright ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces. DADT and DOMA were compromises because we didn’t have the votes necessary to veto the legislation outright and the Clintons did not want it go there. They explained themselves repeatedly and the senate records back them up. Remember folks we had a seat at the table which GWB promptly removed when he took office.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at some of the naivete displayed in this thread.
t should be noted that in his Martin Luther King speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Barack Obama specifically said that blacks had been unkind to their gay brothers and sisters. He stands with us and speaks the hard truths to all.
There are many gay racists, and there are many homophobic black people. This is just the way the world is. There are also a shitload of white homophobes, in case many of you have forgotten. if you think lying ass status quo backroom Hillary Clinton will save you, vote for her. You will absolutely get a republican president. She is the one candidate that will energize the republicans.
This is a BAD WEEK FOR BARACK and I actually feel sorry for him as the women’s Backlash will be like a Smackdown on Obama. He had me at the “Audacity of Hope” Speech at the DNC, lost me with Oprah’s Gospelfest and really, really lost me when he said that he lobbed praise on Reagan (…who never mentioned AIDS during his presidency) in a California political calculation that will backfire. As a New Yorker, when Hillary announced her run for the US Senate despite the “Kill the Queen” press, she easily dispensed with General Guiliani who imploded only to get “manhandled” by amateur Rick Lazio who is probably delivering pizzas now. She went on to become our best senator and turned Republicans into Hillocrats. We will know in a few weeks who will become the Vice President on this top two-tiered ticket. Remember, over 50% of voters are women who are responding to the Hillary-bashing in poll-shocking numbers. Hillary Vs McCain? He’s so toast against the Clinton War Room. If Barack does become the Presidential candidate, this BAD WEEK FOR BARACK will be like a picnic for the sensitive types because REPUBLICANS play to WIN and it’s already predicted (see Greg Palast book) that the Voting Machines are rigged to discount black votes in 2008! We need to start demanding a joint Hillary-Obama ticket!!
PS – Is that Reverend Caldwell trying to pick me up?
Most of you, just by reading the comments, have obviously fallen into believing the Clinton Machine. It’s unfortunate because, as a political observer, you would know EXACTLY what the Clintons are doing. They are just as good at campaigning as Republicans are — they hit hard, fast, and dirty. This is why Bill trounced Bob Dole in ’96 and Hillary slaughtered Rick Lazio in her first senate run.
As mentioned in the post and by a few other commenters, it take some serious balls to go out in front of a congregation of queer-fearing Baptists and say that “we have been unkind to our gay brothers and sisters.”
By the way, Obama didn’t say that Regan = God. He said that Republicans have consistently been able to lodge their ridiculous ideas into people’s brains, thus creating a huge “conservative base.” Where do you think “It’s My Money” came from? The 1994 plan to “Take Back America” was a brilliant election plot. Swiftboat? We’re still reeling from that. If anything, Obama’s comment was a jab, calling for Liberals to organize better.
Note to self: Repeating “BAD WEEK” in all caps followed by gossip, conspiracy theories, and highly dubious statements is not a good way to win others to support a questionable candidate.
As for the idea that “If there would have been any other president other than Bill Clinton we would be living under a Constitutional ban on gay marriage…” that the other commenter suggested, well, let’s be honest here….
Bush Sr. NEVER supported any such legislation, and if the Democrats had gone with Gore instead of Clinton, we would’ve all been better off. Perhaps you forget that Al Gore was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign,with a 90% approval rating from the HRC dating back to ’88? That’s really high, especially considering he was a senator from otherwise conservative Tennesee.
Frankly, if Gore was elected in 1992, it’s hard to imagine that the Democrats would’ve lost the 2000 election.
I’m well aware that the Clintons are on the record for making excuses for not standing up for gays. I’m well aware that LGBT issues are sometimes political liabilities, too. But I would rather have a president that supports us on principal and fails, then one who repeately succeeds at surrendering our rights.
“Most of you, just by reading the comments, have obviously fallen into believing the Clinton Machine.”
“Slave mentality” was the expression I had in mind. People too comfortable, too complacent, and/or too afraid to actually go out and demand equal rights anymore.
They’d rather come to the Clintons, hat in hand, because they have a lot of promises — and a track record of eight years of failure — to back them up.
Really, I’m not sure that Clinton was really much better for gays than Reagan, frankly. Sure, Reagan’s policies killed thousands, but at least they mobilized *US* to make a difference. Our real advances weren’t given to us. We *MADE* them. We took them ourselves.
It was our hard work that has changed the culture of America to be more accepting… not that of the politicians. We moved the world underneath their feet, and they’re *STILL* trying to play catch up.
Okiee dokie, Obama people … you make it really hard to support the guy.
I back Hillary because she has accomplished a fair amount in her seven years in the Senate, while Obama has accomplished relatively little in his three years.
This is not because I have a slave mentality. Nor is it because I’m naive. It’s a choice.
I’d still back Obama if he winds the nomination.
In the meantime, instead of waving Obama’s speeches in our faces, maybe you ought to try and follow them. Part of “inclusive” means that you don’t call people names and insult them for disagreeing with you.
Side 1: Those “who would you vote for tests?” are rather worthless. They all point me to Kucinich. Which, yeah, I agree with him on the issues … I just cannot imagine that he’d be an effective leader, and I don’t think he’s that great of a thinker.)
Side 2: Mark, Reagan helped us mobilize by letting thousands of us die??? I have some problems with your logic. Anyways, if politicians don’t matter – as you conclude in your post – then we might as well vote for Huckabee, right?
I’m not saying that Reagan was better than Clinton at all. But sometimes, it’s easier to be openly hated rather than given false promises. At least you know where you stand with your enemies and can unite against them, undermine them, or route around them… but when you routinely deal with leaders that promise change and deliver nothing, that kind of cycle can become institutional and hold you back for a long, long time.
If we keep choosing politicians that triangulate their positions and only advance our rights when it is politically easy to do so, we’ll probably have full equality under the law at about the same time that Christian conservatives finally get the Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Of course, much like overturning Roe v. Wade is for the Republican Party, you could make a good argument that it’s not in the best interest of the Democratic power structure for gays to ever have equal rights under the law.
As Gandhi said:
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
We’ve been ignored and ridiculed… and we fought back. But now there’s a general consensus amongst many politicians that the best way to deal with us is to ignore us in perpetuity.
If you want equal rights… actual equal rights… you need to accept the fact that we will be ridiculed once more, and that we will have to fight for them again. You can’t expect that they’ll just be given to you, or that your rights can be acquired “on the cheap” if you just play ball with the same old people who broke their promises last time.
Interesting how Obama is being pilloried for making an accurate sociopolitical observation about reagan: fact is, the horrid ron WAS “transformative.” From before Kennedy through Carter (and even including Nixon), there were certain “realities” that were accepted as givens. The role of government, for instance, was to a greater (dems) or lesser (repubs) extent responsible for ensuring public welfare, advancing civil rights, and engaging in “soft” activities like environmental protection and education. Reagan, through what I am assured were his phenomenal communication and rhetorical skills (never much saw that, myself), convinced a majority of voters to (as Obama said in last night’s debate, and others observed at the time) vote against their interests and in favor of a revolutionary shift in the view of government’s role: protection of economic interests, protection of industrial interests from an owner, not a labor, standpoint, and military might. That became the paradigm for bush the first, clinton, and bush ii, to the extent he can be said to have any thoughts about anything.
All Obmama was saying was an historical fact: Reagan was a “transformative” figure. He never said rr was smart, insightful, or right. Just transformative.
And the clintons let him have it with both barrels, twisting his words and convoluting his context, and behaving in such a politically conniving and personally destructive and generally unscrupulous way on this one small thing as to seal for the the question of clinton or obama in favor of barak.
See, the thing is, the most effective role of a president is NOT, as hc would tell us, to be some sort of general manager of national operations. The “bully pulpit” is the most effective tool for unifying, motivating, persuading, and calling the american people to action. I’ve come to believe hc can’t be trusted to do that, and frankly isn’t rhetorically capable. Obama is. And he can be, in every sense of the word, transformative.
“And the clintons let him have it with both barrels, twisting his words and convoluting his context, and behaving in such a politically conniving and personally destructive and generally unscrupulous way on this one small thing …”
I understood what Obama was trying to say, and I agree that Hillary tried to score some cheap points off of misrepresenting it.
Before we get too self-righteous, though … Obama’s camp also tried to score some cheap political points by misrepresenting Hillary’s comments on LBJ and civil rights.
I see this as basic politics. If you see it as conniving and unscrupulous, fine … but Obama is as guilty as the rest of `em.
his is a wise statesman.understans that gay poll is an important strength.but ,we are not only praise him for his decision but also pleasure to see the sunshine future of gay. i have meet many humourous sexy and vigorious gayman on gaysinglehunt.com. their live and story are wonderful,so why cant we accept them as our normal neighbourhood.
Ben Vos, Nashville
Just because you don’t agree 100% with someone doesn’t mean that you can’t allow them to endorse you. And just because you believe that sexual orientation is fluid and not rigidly defined doesn’t mean that you’re anti-gay.
Where’s the story? This is the exact divisiveness that our country does not need anymore. People can endorse whoever they want. What does this have to do with Obama’s stance on the issues. He is willing to give college students $4000 towards their tuition, make community college pretty much free for young people, is going to create a fund to help people who are in foreclosure sell their house and he was against the war from start.
Obama is the future! HE has the best opportunity to bring our country together, work across party lines to get things done.
That is what I care about most!
Mark Kraft is obviously TEAM BARACK and we will all join that team if he can squeak by TEAM HILLARY but some of us just know the machinations of the Electoral College better as antiquated as it is. A victory in South Carolina (the staging reason for race-baiting) does not speak to a Presidential inevitability like Super Tuesday will. For those who are dumb enough (and we know by your mispelling and naive notions of democracy) to be sucked in by the corporate press, underemployed bloggers, tabloid reading Kool-Aid gays who would rather VOTE against their own self-interests to satisfy this clubiness of inclusion of self-hating otherness (like internatlized homophobia) like Men who can’t articulately explain why they hate Hillary by saying “She’s just a Bitch!” or people who say that Barack is “Pro-Ronald Reagan” are people who treat this like the Superbowl and cherry-pick issues as talking points. Pick a team and never admit defeat. Hopefully, Hillary and Barack will be on the same ticket called TEAM DEMOCRAT. To vote against either of these in the general election possibly requires therapy if you put Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain in office because we did not get the primary outcome we wanted. I honestly love them both but did choose what I believed to be the strongest candidate on line item issues in which I care about as a progressive. A “Bad week for Barack” is completely justified because his momentum was nullified by the Democratic Voters after Iowa. Next week might be a bad week for Hillary (it’s all about VOTING and not our PUNDITRY) This week might well be A GOOD WEEK FOR KUCINICH who rightly made NO endorsement as neither candidate truly honors his real integrity in this race before dropping out. He was the true Revolutionary, the others are campaigning from the middle and we’ll see how they govern when they become elected. I would rather be mildly disappointed by a Democratic President like in the nineties than have my Gay brothers and sisters completely outlawed by the Republicans time after time after time.
To all those OBAMA SHILLS on this thread who are trying to claim that this is just a unilateral, out-of-the-blue endorsement that Obama could’nt control, you’re wrong and you’re misleading people.
In fact, there has been an ONGOING RELATIONSHIP between Obama’s campaign and Caldwell, starting as early as July ’07 when Caldwell was part of Obama’s “faith forum:”
Obama’s campaign then followed that by inviting Caldwell on the notorious antigay McClurkin tour in S.C.
Since then, he has been doing events with Obama’s campaign as recently as December:
The fact is, this endorsement is the result of a long period of involvement with Caldwell and if Obama’s campaign decided not to use him after the uproar it was only because they got caught red-handed, AGAIN.
The fact is, whatever Obama’s “personal views” you have to ask yourself what he’ll do as president when the chips are down and people are calling in favors. Who will have his ear? If Obama is so at ease with people like McClurkin and Caldwell he cannot be trusted on GLBT (and many other) issues. It’s that simple.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Both served up to us by the Clinton Administration. Both have had a more detrimental effect on LGBT Americans than anyone who Obama has ever stood beside or taken a picture with. Get real folks — Since Clinton is taking credit for everything that happened during her husband’s administration, maybe she can answer for these two horrendous policies as well.
How easily people forget history.
DADT was a compromise that arose out of Bill Clinton’s effort to get the ban lifted completely. It was a bad policy, obviously, but it was better than an outright ban and it was CERTAINLY better than what the Republican Congress was threatening at the time, which was a more permanent legislative ban.
DOMA was again a bad policy but it arguably staved off the push for a Constitutional amendment, which would have been much harder to reverse.
The fact is, Bill Clinton has a lot to answer for re: GLBT policies but he welcomed us into the party and gave public attention to our issues at a time when doing so posed FAR greater political risk than it does today.
Hillary is far from perfect on our issues, either, but she understands them even better than Bill and will not get in the way of our progress just to pander to religious conservatives. As an example, I invite you to watch this video of Sen. Clinton discussing gay teen suicide:
She has promised to reverse DADT and the most damaging provisions of DOMA, like Obama. The difference is, she has the grit to get it done and she won’t be cowed by the religious right in the interest of “bipartisanship.” She also has quite a few high profile gay politicians (like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin) in her camp, unlike Obama and Edwards. I think it bodes well that several notable and well respected GLBT people have her ear. Who has Obama’s ear? Kirbyjon Caldwell.
It took me a long time to choose a candidate, but I’m finally ready to say that if the choice is between Hillary and Barack, I choose Hillary all the way.
Senator Hillary Clinton was Endorsed by the New York Times for the February 5th Democratic Primary. CASE SLOSED (Upper case for Obama-campaigner Mark Kraft) as we lobby for a joint Hillary-Barack. The only problem is who gets to be on Top. Super Tuesday will tell and the Democrats are leading by 18% over any Republican with Hillary now the strongest contender over her current rivals. Take that to the Ashram, Mark!
CORRECTION: CASE CLOSED (Hey, my coffee is heating up…) so you can go back to your Om Shanti Obama-loving until we ALL unite to defeat the true Beast: The Evil GOP and the Media “666”.
I guess most of you never have come into contact with people like this man and there supporters well I have and I will tell you from fisthand experince Fred Phelps has nothing on the likes of these people they have been beat down most of there lives and gay people are there only way to vent there hate and it is hate plain and simple and for a Democratic Senator to make’s excuses for them is not someone who will stand up for the GLBT comunity I have had to endure in my own home the hate from the so called christians from my next door neighbor. I cannot go on the side of my home that borders here home without being Screamed at with the most nasty hateful things that should never be said. Me and my partner and have had to have the police come to stop this and this was with the help of her adult children with there children watching and i have lived next to her for 15 yrs and this started the last 2 years when she became involed with some church until then we had a good relationship so no i will not support someone who allows this type of hatred period no matter if he gets the nomination i will not vote for someone who dosen’t condem this but gives a voice to it.
Comments are closed.