Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal’s no doubt pleased with this week’s edition.
His paper made a splash yesterday when it published both an extensive interview with Hillary Clinton and a big, blank middle finger to Barack Obama, who PGN accuses of avoiding the pink press. But an Obama interview isn’t the only thing missing from the paper.
Segal – who did the Clinton interview and also penned an exhaustive editorial bashing Obama – failed to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in March of 2007.
That would have made for a good front page.
It seems confusing; Huffington says that Segal gave Obama $2300
The Mark Segal who donated to Obama lives in Illinois–it’s a different person.
A hyphen in the headline would have saved me ten seconds of re-reading in confusion…
sorry, grammar fiend.
Check out this email I wrote to the publisher of the article (their email addresses are [email protected] and [email protected]):
Dear Mr. Segal and Ms. Blazucki,
I read today your article in the Philadelphia Gay News entitled “Clinton Talks; Obama Balks”. After reading it, I felt compelled to write to you to tell you how dismayed I was see such a slanted and accusatorial article.
Under the auspices of writing an article about your interview with Hillary Clinton, you take great pains to smear Barack Obama in a very unflattering light.
This is especially troubling, considering the fact that Mr. Segal is a donor to the Clinton campaign. You failed to disclose this important fact in your article and, as a result, unsuspecting readers might think that this article was a unbiased piece of journalism, rather than a slanted missive penned by someone who who donated at least $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.
Senator Barack Obama is an amazing advocate for LGBT rights and issues and has spoken out in various hostile venues on the importance of the repeal of DOMA and the elimination of homophobia. Senator Obama has spoken directly to our community’s issues and does not cynically view us as some demographic segment to which to pander.
I hope you will consider printing a correction to your article, which you deem so important as to prominently pre-empt all other content on your website, with a note that discloses Mr. Segal’s financial relationship to the Clinton campaign.
Very truly yours,
Update: Here’s the reply I received from Mark Segal, the publisher (he didn’t even address my email):
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I humbly must disagree with your facts and your false sense of our editor’s position.
We state very clearly that Senator Obama spoke with The Advocate, but only after the controversy caused by his travels with an anti gay minister, and that was a limited interview. In our research, not only do we mention that interview but we ourselves were surprised to discover that the Senator has only one other interview in the gay press, which was a full interview. That was back in 2004 and given to the “Windy City Times” in Chicago.
btw, the interview and editorial were from Philadelphia Gay News, Sue O’Connell has no affiliation with PGN other then a loose configuration PGN shares with other Local LGBT publications.
A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community. That can only truly be accomplished by doing what candidates do for every other community. speak to our community press.
We will continue to make our pages available to Senator Obama. It is his decision if he wishes to speak to our community. We have also suggested that their are other local LGBT publications which he might consider. He’s an inspiring man, and i hope he graces our press.
btw, the interview were from Philadelphia Gay News, Sue O’Connell has no affiliation with PGN other then a loose configuration PGN has with other Local publications.
Philadelphia Gay News
Update 2: Finally, here is my last reply to Mark Segal, in response to his email to me:
Dear Mr. Segal,
I thank you for your reply email but it appears that you might have cut-and-pasted a reply to me from an email you wrote to someone else.
As I noted in my original email, I find it troubling that the article in question did not contain a disclosure that you, Mr. Segal, are a donor to the Clinton campaign. Disclosures such as this, when there is an actual or perceptible conflict of interest, are commonplace in journalism and routinely appear when a reporter has a particular tie to the subject matter of the article.
In addition, I take strong exception to this statement in your email:
A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community. That can only truly be accomplished by doing what candidates do for every other community. speak to our community press.
This is both misleading and inaccurate, for two reasons.
Firstly, Senator Obama has spoken to millions of people, including a variety of audiences hostile to LGBT causes, in televised appearances at the Ebeneezer Baptist Church and Rick Warren’s church, about the damage that homophobia causes. I challenge you to research an article on any instance where Hillary Clinton has appeared in front of a hostile audience and spoken out on LGBT issues.
Lastly, you say that Obama “must be willing to speak to our community” and, in response, I can assure you that he is, in fact, speaking to our community. The gay ghettoization of the post-Stonewall era is steadily eroding, as evidenced by the straight gentrification of previously gay strongholds such as the Castro and West Hollywood. Part and parcel of this de-ghettoization is the diminished need and market for “gay only” media. When I found word of your article on Clinton and Obama, this was the first time that I — and most of my friends — had bothered to open a “gay publication” in over 10 years. Barack Obama speaks to each and every one of us because we are all, at our root, Americans. And when Barack Obama speaks to Americans, Gay Americans, and Transgendered Americans, he doesn’t need to do so through the mouthpiece of some myopic “gay publication”. He speaks to me through ABC News. He speaks to me through The Economist. And he speaks to me through his rallies and campaign emails.
I encourage you to, at the very least, print a correction to your article that points out your conflict of interest. Additionally, I encourage you to look beyond your small one-town paper and realize that gay people no longer rely on the “gay media”. To your point, you and uour ilk are NOT my community press and do not speak for millions of gays and lesbians across our country.
Your very truly,
Thanks KCG for your efforts: Segal really ought to publish an apology what a cretan. i can’t imagine that he would virtually pay her and then pull the subsequent published shenanigans .
Good way to represent the queer community!
Thanks for the address!
Thanks for the thanks y’all! 🙂 I’ll post any more correspondence I receive at my blog, http://weneedobama.blogspot.com , and here when I get it.
Please change the headline to “OBAMA-BLASTING PUBLISHER” instead of “OBAMA BLASTING PUBLISHER,” because it reads as though Obama is blasting the publisher.
FYI, here’s a link to the publication’s advertisers, with contact information, if you want to express your concerns about Mark Segal’s ethics: http://epgn.p2ionline.com/Flip/Sitebase/index.aspx?adgroupid=132684&view=adv
And here is the contact info for the authors and their assistant:
Mark Segal (ext. 204)
Sarah Blazucki (ext. 206)
Dana Allison (ext. 202)
Digg this article here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Author_of_Obama_Hit_Piece_Turns_Out_to_be_Clinton_Donor to get the word out there.
um…. did anyone else notice that the email that Mr. Segal sent (as quoted above) was illiterate? Just a thought. It does not speak well of the publication if that is the quality of writing of the editor.
A Candidate asking for our vote, must be willing to speak to our community, and not only at fund raisers where their are limited people and taking our dollars, but the full community.
What does that even mean?!?
If this article had the politicians reversed, and it was an Obama supporter blasting Hillary, there wouldn’t be any controversy.
This is a classic example of what Princeton economist/NY Times columnist Paul Krugman calls “Clinton Rules”â€”that is, anything Sen. Clinton does is ipso facto evil; anything Obama does is ipso facto pure and innocent. If it was Hillary refusing an interview with PGN, “The Washington Blade,” the Ohio “Gay Peoples Chronicle,” and LOGO News, and Goddess knows how many other gay media, you would be over her like ticks on a dog. But while she has faced the questions of those media outlets, Obama has refused and you switch the topic to the alleged lack of objectivity of the publisher. Read this slowly:
IT’S IRRELEVANT! “The Wall Street Journal” damn well wouldn’t endorse Obamsâ€”or any liberal Demâ€”but can you imagine him refusing an interview with them? Obama paid for a full page ad in the Ohio paper but refused, unlike Sen. Clinton, to talk to them. If a picture making him look like St. Barack of Assisi and a couple of bumper sticker phrases about gay progress were could enough for their readers why wasn’t being asked to answer the same questions Sen. Clinton did? Where are his balls?
“The Advocate” revealed months ago that he only agreed to be interviewed by them when he was trying to do damage control after having paid for the bus that Donnie “gays are trying to kill our children” McClurkin ran over us with. Sen. Clinton had been interviewed by them weeks before.
The Messiah for the Gays hides behind blink and you miss them hollow sounds bites dropping the G-word and y’all squeal like little girls, wet your polyester panties, and act as if he just raised all the people who ever died of AIDS from the dead. How long will you let this smile fucker play us for stupid?
Hillary’s known for her pants suits.
Obama is ever more obviously an empty suit.
Wow, that last comment almost approached coherence. I think more from random accident than any semblance of intelligence from the author.
I live in Philadelphia. I think the PGN is a great newspaper for LGBTs in the area. The paper asked Obama, Clinton, and McCain for interviews. Only Clinton accepted. It’s just my opinion, but that’s Obama and McCain saying that our vote doesn’t matter. Sure Clinton needs votes in Philadelphia…polls show her behind in the city…but she could speak to many groups, and one of the ones she chose was gays and lesbians. That means something to me.
Jee-sus, Helen, are you seriously capable of making this leap? “Itâ€™s just my opinion, but thatâ€™s Obama and McCain saying that our vote doesnâ€™t matter.” Does your support for Hillary shut off the rational faculties?
Yeah, I guess Obama thinks our vote doesn’t matter, so that’s why he got up in front of a redneck megachurch and denounced homophobia. That’s why Obama got up in front of an AA church, Ebeneezer Baptist, and denounced homophobia.
You are giving the PGN too much import and credit. How about you address the conflict of interest?
The paper called 3 people 1 called back. Where is the conflict of interest? I see none. He didn’t call back. Obama “balked” pure and simple…to the PGN.
How about you address the fact that one candidate will give an interview with the leading newspaper in Philadelphia weeks before the primary in that state and the other won’t.
Typical White Person
He only gave a thousand bucks and you got your panties in a tightwad. Obama wussed out. That is all there is to it. The fact that this man gave money to the Clinton campaign doesn’t reverse some of the bad choices in pals that Mr. Obama has made.
Obama has snubbed to gay press several times.
Remember, all Democrats will need the Clintons to help bring the party together after Obama gets the nomination. It is not necessary to demonize her anymore just to get some traffic on your website.
Speaking of rational and leaps…you did some leaping yourself in your response.
KCG…rational and leaps…I’ve read your letters to the PGN…why don’t you spend your time writing the Republicans instead of tripping up your own party and a media outlet that is there for your support. Those redneck mega churches your candidate is talking to instead of talking to the PGN won’t be printing any gay news for us to read about.
Clinton graciously agreed to be interviewed by a man who had donated $1,000 to her campaign. How do you think she expected to be treated by PGN?
Obama declined to be interviewed by that same major Clinton backer? Don’t you think that might have been a smart move on his part?
When an editor (or in this case, a douchebag publisher who fancies himself an editor, as well as a political kingmaker) publicly declares support for one candidate, he can’t really bitch and moan when the other candidates decline interviews.
Oh, and BTW, when I call Mark Segal a douchebag, it’s not flippant name-calling. It’s a well-reasoned critical assessment:
I have been astounded by the vitriol expressed here. The primaries will wrap up in two months and it will most likely be Obama. He is anything but an empty suit. He is a harvard grad, skilled community organizer and has impressed many in this country with his talents. Look at his campaign. He has had millions of small donations and is way ahead financially of McCain or Hillary and has thousands and thousands of volunteers going door to door in PA, OR, ND and NC. Neither candidate has demonized or abused the glbt community. If Obama wins the nod I will support him and if it his Hillary, I will support her. Please stop the small battle fights and look toward all of us working together for a better future. Obama’s organizers have already pledged to work for the dem candidate whoever it is and I am with them on that. This is just an election. May the best person win and may we all see the potential in each other to create a better world. The best person is not John McCain. Thanks.
I’m a white, gay, agnostic man and I can’t help but feel that a lot of “liberal democrats'” hatred of Obama stems from subconscious racism or Islamophobia. I just don’t see any other way to explain the vitriol directed at him by some commenters here and other places.
Itâ€™s no surprise about Mark Segal and his blasting Obama. They were courting Hillary from day one regardless of him saying he wasnâ€™t going to give an endorsement to anyone. PGN is a WHITE gay newspaper. That doesnâ€™t ever support Black LGBT so being from this area. I am not surprised at all. Black Gay Pride in Philadelphia is in 3 weeks and no Info about it in PGNâ€¦GO FIGURE!
The biases and racism that lies with some in the Gay Community is really sad.
Most of the people on here that supports Clinton and uses Jeremiah Wright, Donnie McClurkin, and James Meeks against Obama are simply subliminal potshots because they are afraid to say I will not vote for a Man of color even when heâ€™s partially Caucasian. But yet you want to get respect from the heterosexual community. This campaign has really shown that there is true racism in the Gay community
But yet they will sleep with them after 12AM and before 6AM so the neighbors wonâ€™t see the Black guy leaving the residence. Talk about discrimination. But you know what. I hate to say this. Maybe this is a good thing to teach Gays about â€œReaping what you sewâ€
Because at the height of it all where Dems are in so much power with this upcoming election. This simple War of the Roses is going to kill it all and allow McCain to step right in
And you want to talk about someone treating you bad and indifferent as some of you are to people of color. When McCain wins all I can say to the LGBT community is
â€œWELCOME TO THE TERRORDOMEâ€
Then maybe the next time around youâ€™ll treat all people with the dignity and respect that you would want!
WAKE UP! BillinPDX is right we need to pull together.
Hillary nor Obama cannot do SHIT for any of you! The ones that can make, and or break anything for the LGBT community are your U.S Senators, and U.S Representatives. Try writing them sometimes!
But I guess you donâ€™t realize that neither.
And can someone tell me
WHAT THE FUCK IS GAY RIGHTS?????
it’s not a conflict of interest for an editorial journalist to support a candidate, it’s a conflict for her/him to serve on a campaign. If no journalists were allowed to write about candidates if they donated, then nothing would ever be written. and while i love you guys, you must admit it’s a little funny that this blog would start insinuating political bias. i mean, pot, meet kettle.
Lets kick some Aisse!
http://www.perfectsee.com is coming, and the best choice of comparing shopping.
Barack Obama didn’t accept an invitation for an interview with my shitty university’s paper. From this, I can assume he doesnt value the votes from my school. As my school has a large number of asians and african americans, I can assume that Obama doesn’t care for any of these populations. Thats right, as you can clearly see, Obama is a bigot.
See, this is how retarded you sound when you defend the actions of the papers. Obama is a busy man. So when he doesn’t interview with one paper, even if that paper has a certain agenda, thats not a good basis to infer information from.
Beyond all this, judging from the Editor’s AIM-speak, in a form letter no less, I might be able to see why Obama turning this down truly is a blessing. If someone sent my campaign a letter asking to “give up the LOL and head down to philly b4 I continU on”, I’d probably laugh in their face too.
What a crock of crap story…
@ No. 27 Â· Dawgson
I think you are on to something..
We do not want to hear about these two anymore, its getting old. When are we going to hear about the politian we really care about, Ron Paul?
Personally i think the fact Barack made this gathering i reposted below covers the city of Phila and i am a resident of Phila pa.
Obama holds LGBT fundraiser in New York City
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT OR WANT TO SHARE THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
Obama Holds LGBT Fund-raiser In New York City
Sen. Barack Obama waded deep into Clinton
territory Thursday evening at a private LGBT
fund-raiser in New York City where the price of
admission was $2,300 per person.
Held at the apartment of GLSEN founder and
executive director Kevin Jennings and his partner,
Jeff Davis, the event drew about 125 people and
raised $170,000. No press were admitted, but based
on several accounts, attendees were struck by the
Illinois senatorâ€™s candor as well as his fluency
with LGBT issues.
â€œIâ€™ve been to many events over the past 10 years
of candidates running for office,â€ said Corey
Johnson, one of the hosts, â€œThis was the most
forthright, eloquent, and detailed stuff Iâ€™ve heard
from a politician [regarding gay issues].â€
Molly Lenore, 43, compared Obamaâ€™s discussion of
the LGBT community to the speech he gave about race
in America last week. â€œDuring his race speech,
everybody said afterward that he treated the
American people like adults, and I felt like thatâ€™s
what he did,â€ said Lenore, who is transgender and an
Obama supporter. â€œI might not agree 100%, but I want
to have an intelligent conversation with somebody.â€
According to those present, Obama spoke for about
30 to 35 minutes about queer issues and then fielded
questions, most of which were not LGBT-specific.
Johnson, who is 25, has supported Obama for about
a year but prefaced his remarks by saying he has
never been an â€œObama-phile.â€ He said the senator
addressed some of the most contentious LGBT issues
without prompting, such as same-sex marriage and the
inclusion of transgender people in the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act. In fact, those were the two
issues Sen. Obama singled out as being potential
disappointments to the LGBT community right now,
while he signaled that a hate-crimes bill could
likely be passed and signed into law and that repeal
of â€œdonâ€™t ask, donâ€™t tellâ€ might be on the horizon.
According to several sources, including Johnson
and Lenore, Obama said he did not think it was
â€œpolitically feasibleâ€ to secure marriage rights for
same-sex couples in the country at this point. Sen.
Obama acknowledged that the community wanted full
marriage rights but said that he favored civil
unions for now while leaving open the possibility
that his position might evolve in the future.
In terms of ENDA, Obama said he supported an ENDA
that included transgender protections but that he
didnâ€™t believe a fully inclusive bill had enough
votes to pass the Senate at this time.
â€œI donâ€™t agree — I think weâ€™re much stronger
united as a community,â€ Lenore said of keeping
transgender protections in the bill. â€œBut I do
understand the politics and I do appreciate the fact
that he said, hey, itâ€™s not going to pass in this
political climate. Many other politicians havenâ€™t
really done that. They make decisions but they never
really address the trans community.â€
Should he become president, Obama said his first
three priorities would be designing a safe exit
strategy for Iraq, working on affordable health
care, and addressing greenhouse gases and the
As Sen. Obama made his way to the door, Johnson
said he asked the senator directly to do more
interviews with the gay press, citing the fact that
he has conducted only one interview with an LGBT
outlet during his presidential campaign. â€œI said,
â€˜Your speech tonight was so moving to all of us, the
way you spoke about our community. You need to do
more [interviews],â€ recalled Johnson. â€œAnd he said,
â€˜Youâ€™re right, absolutely. We do need to do more
with the LGBT press.â€™â€ (Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate)
I live in Philadelphia, and Mark Segal is notorious when it comes to unbalanced coverage of politics in PGN. Like many old-school Philadelphia Democrats, he is very much part of the city political establishment, and his paper’s political commentary should (and must) be read through that lens.
On a different topic, an earlier commenter pointed out that the paper (supposedly) asked all three major presidential candidates – Obama, Clinton, and McCain – to sit down for an interview. Ask yourself this very obvious question: if only Clinton accepted, why isn’t McCain being lambasted on the front page just like Obama? That tells you pretty much all you need to know about Mark Segal’s politics.
Finally, read the interview with Clinton. It ain’t exactly a hard-hitting piece of journalism. She’s allowed to get away with some rather blatant non-answers to important questions:
PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they canâ€™t get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didnâ€™t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.
…and the interview continues from there as if Clinton didn’t just totally evade the question. Oy. I do wish my fellow queers could actually bring a critical eye to this kind of stuff – too many of us get swept up in the manipulations of people like Mark Segal, to our detriment.
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
LGBT rights are integrated into Obama’s stump speech – NOT Clintons.
Obama would eradicate ALL of DOMA – NOT Clinton.
Obama co-sponsored a bill to protect the trans community/and lgbt community based on gender identity and expression – NOT Clinton.
It is very unfair to portray Obama as less “pro-gay”.
Putting aside Democratic politics for a second, it is highly unprofessional of Mr. Segal to have written this piece without disclosing his contribution to the Clinton campaign. This behavior casts doubt on the even-handedness of the paper’s reporting, which then marginalizes it. I feel bad for the other reporters on staff.
Segal should apologize to PGN’s readers and to his staff.
Not an Obamabot
I would like to know why Obama proudly touts in his speeches the fact that his mixed-raced parents used this land of opportunity to get married when quite a few states still didn’t allow it.
Then he feels perfectly justified in disallowing gay couples the same opportunity. No, separate but equal is fine for us he says, yet he has no timeline of actually even getting that done during his term.
When I posed this question to his camp, I got a canned answer that didn’t answer my question, got signed up for his newsletter, and they asked me for a donation.
“Not a typical politician”, my ass.
To “Not an Obamabot”, I don’t get what exactly your umbrage is here: “Then he feels perfectly justified in disallowing gay couples the same opportunity.” Obama supports the repeal of DOMA and supports a federal civil union recognition law.
Once DOMA is repealed, gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnership is a STATE ISSUE. The Federal government doesn’t marry anyone. Obama supports Federal recognition of a state-granted gay marriage/etc. and supports reciprocity between states recognizing gay marries/etc. granted in other states.
What more do you want?
Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing DOMA. Period.
Further to my last comment, here’s an exact quote from the official Obama website / http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome :
“Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
As I mentioned above, if you want gay “marriage” in your state, call and write your local state governors and representatives. The Federal government doesn’t marry people.
If your state, like Massachusetts, creates gay “marriage”, or, like Vermont, creates “civil unions”, then Obama’s proposals would recognize both and grant the Federal rights appurtenant thereto to couples in each type of civil partnership.
I’ve read many other posts here about Obama, ok he is not the devil but he is hardly pure and holy either. Read everything about both candidates.
I hardly think PGN and Mark Segal are hypocrites for not blasting McCain – he isn’t pretending to care about Gays! So why bother commenting?
And I hardly think Hillary was “bought off” or only gave an interview to PGN because of a lousy thousand dollars!
And for “Sweet Johnny” – maybe Hillary could come out swinging more for our community, but I read your quote of her interview and I understand what she was saying. If the Federal Constitution WAS amended, it would be a lot harder than overturning STATE Constitutions. ETC. ETC. A pure, 100% true to their ideas politician CANNOT exist because they would never appeal to enough people to get elected.
Either Obama or Clinton would be far preferable than McCain but my gut tells me Obama is promising everything to everybody and CANNOT deliver.
Mr. Snyder: the following FACTS [with documentation] may not make Obama “less pro gay” but they raise LEGITIMATE questions about his real priorities and integrity:
FACT: Obama went missing in action when the Illinois LGBT rights bill [NOT US Senate for anyone unclear] that actually passed was introduced. He COsponsored a similar one introduced at about the same time that died in committee. He had nine months before being elected to the US Senate to join as a cosponsor of the bill that clearly had a chance. WHY didn’t he? His replacement in the ILL sennate did.
FACT: Even WORSE he directly lied to “The Advocate” in his McClurkingate Damage Control interview claiming he had been a “chief cosponsor” of and was even responsible for it “passing.” As noted he wasn’t even IN the ILL senate anymore when it was voted on. Equality Illinois and the “Windy City Times” never even mentioned his name in their post victory accounts.
FACT: After some 30 years of trying, such a bill passed by only ONE vote. Obama’s OTHER combo close friend and spiritual advisor the Rev. James Meeks is also State Sen. James Meeks. He is a rabid homophobe who ran for governor on an antigay platform. Despite intense lobbying from gay groups he refused to vote for the bill. If Obama can’t convince those close to him to support gay equality how is he going to be the imagined great change agent with a Congress filled with homo/transphobic members?
FACT: Obama’s support for “full repeal of DOMA” is a political hat trick in terms of its Section 2 regarding the responsibilities of states as he is on record as having the same unfortunate position that Sen. Clinton does that the states should be able to do anything they want. His Constitutional law advisor told ABC News last fall that
â€œObama believes states should be under no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies. “Same-sex couples â€¦are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealedâ€¦.”
FACT: While true that Obama frequently drops the G-word in speeches, the claim that he frequently talks about â€œgay RIGHTSâ€ in his speeches is a willful delusionâ€”no less so because it is claimed by him and believed and repeated by so many gay supporters. Itâ€™s a MYTH. Document THREE examples where he has actually used the word â€œrightsâ€ when it has NOT been in response to a question in an interview or debate just as Sen. Clinton has.
He talks about people in Red States having gay friends and not blaming gays and embracing gays but homohaters of the â€œhate the sin love the sinnerâ€ ilk can walk away thinking they arenâ€™t bigots and that neither they nor LAWS needed changed.
FACT: Another myth is that Sen. Clinton tries to hide her support for gay rights from the nongay public. Tell that to the millions of residents of New York state who have either personally seen her marching in the bright sunshine in at least three NYC gay pride parades or seen it on TV or read about it. She proudly and repeatedly did this knowing that such images as her marching AS FIRST LADY â€œbehind a group called the Radical Faeries, which featured a man on skates who wore nothing but a silver cape, a tiara and a jockstrap [NY Times]â€ could be used against her by the religious right in future campaigns.
OR VIDEO: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=1749986n
Compare that to Obama refusing in 2004 to be photographed privately with STRAIGHT SF Mayor Gavin Newsom because Newsom was then Mr. Gay Marriageâ€”even at fundraisers for Obamaâ€™s US Senate campaign that Newsom had hosted.
FACT: However much one attempts to dismiss the Philadelphia Gay News or its publisher, the fact remains that it is not the only gay media that Obama has refused to talk with for the last three + years. Unlike Sen. Clinton, he has also refused a one-on-one interview with LOGO News, an internationally available TV network. WHY?
And the recent gay fundraiser for Obama in NYC mentioned above was closed to the press. WHY?
To Jaroslaw: You said, “If the Federal Constitution WAS amended, it would be a lot harder than overturning STATE Constitutions.”
PLEASE don’t buy this COMPLETELY debunked line of crap spin from Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is the completely mendacious claim that Bill made when he justified to us why he signed DOMA and its the same medacious load of crap coming from Hillary.
Yes, there was a proposal to amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage, but it HAD NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS. ZERO. Amending the US constitution is an obscenely difficult process, which has only happened a handful of times during the life of our country. There is not an iota of a chance that the requisite number of states would have ratified such discriminatory crap, much less gotten out of Congress.
Bill Clinton sold us down the river on DOMA and ran ads in the South touting the fact that he was a conservative good ol’ boy on gay marriage because he signed DOMA.
It was PURE political calculation (i.e. throw gays under the bus, win centrist votes, have arguably plausible explanation for why I threw them under the bus).
FACT: Sen. Clinton supports the repeal of DOMA that prevents federal benefits to gays.
CLAIM: Obama “supports a federal civil union recognition law”?????
See an emergency proctologist IMMEDIATELY! There must be other HUGE FAKE THINGS stuck up your ass!
To Leland Frances:
“FACT: Sen. Clinton supports the repeal of DOMA that prevents federal benefits to gays.
CLAIM: Obama â€œsupports a federal civil union recognition lawâ€?????”
I don’t get what your point is exactly.
Obama supports full repeal of DOMA and Clinton supports only the repeal of Section 3, which bars federal recognition of gay marriage/etc.
Hillary Clinton does NOT support repealing the parts of DOMA that prohibit interstate recognition of gay marriages.
I don’t know if you understand the law or not but if Section 3 of DOMA were repealed (which prohibits federal recognition), you will still need to pass a LAW to require the federal government to recognize state gay marriages/civil unions/etc. in order to grant federal benefits!
Please be informed befroe you post, especially when you refer to things being stuck up someone’s ass.
Segal, I see you were able to get your annoying headline about Barack Obama on outlets such as the Huffington Post. For the record, I support Gay rights. What I don’t support is the OVERWHELMLY Pro Clinton Jewish American lobby. Its pathetically obvious. As “publisher” of Philly Gay News, your power to forward this agenda must excite you.
I hope the Philly Gay News readers show their disappointment in your headline.
KCG- I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m not “buying” anything. I was around when all this took place – the Rethuglicans controlled both houses of congress (for BOTH terms of Bill’s presidency if I am not mistaken) they took all his time and attention with Monica and Whitewater (90 Million Dollars spent on an investigation that didn’t amount to a hill of beans) and they (Rethuglicans) were threatening a Constitutional amendment. The country was pretty paranoid at the time so don’t say it had a ZERO chance of passing. People were pretty worked up about Gays getting married. I think the Clintons did what they could AT THE TIME.
Get some Gay documentaries – Senators were taking tours (Sam Nunn I believe) of submarines, worried (crocodile tears I’m sure) about our straight boys in uniform who might get ogled by a disgusting homo pervert and on and on. There was very little rational discussion about any of this stuff – so again, Bill did not “support” DADT, he thought it was a compromise. The opponents were out for blood!
I understand what you mean about the paranoia of the times. However, as I mentioned, it really seriously is nearly impossible to amend the US constitution without some insane public consensus behind it. I am a lawyer and lived through the 90s. I can tell you that there was nothing even approaching this level of consensus – especially considering that a large chunk of conservatives opposed a constitutional amendment on grounds of federalism.
In order to amend the constitution, 2/3 of both chambers of Congress must approve. THEN, The approved amendment then must be ratified by majority votes in the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the states before it can become part of the Constitution.
I know people were scared about all the sabre-ratting but the only reason it was an issue is because Republicans used the threat of it as a political tool to get elected. Hardly any of them actually thought it was a political reality.
Bill Clinton may be duplicitous, but he is not stupid. Just as he lied to American workers about not approving NAFTA, while he was holding meetings with Business tycoons and promising the opposite, which with the help of REPUBLICAN senators into a rape of american jobs, he lied about DADT. He does to this day. The dummies are the people who are so gullible to believe that there was any integrity to a Bill that said, well “just lie about who you are and what you see and it’s ok to be gay.How much bullshit can people swallow and not burp? That’s no compromise, it’s a lie.
Mr. Segal owns a newspaper and is using it to promote his favorite candidate. No surprise. Second, he is a businessman, not a community leader. No one elected him.
The only thing palatable that I can imagine is that Bill hopes to reverse all of the damage he has done , carrying Hillary on his shoulders.
Do you know how many reporters have donated to the Obama campaign, and continue to shill for him on a daily basis? Give me a break.
Obama did the worst — he told gays to treat Homophobes with dignity, because they didn’t know they were wrong. He also gave us the finger twice, when we told him to get rid of McClurkin.
Stop trying to make this guy into something he is not. He has real issues with the gay community, and no amount of manipulation is going to change that.
This article comes after a long line of others stating exactly the same thing. Obama’s “gay problem”, has played out over a year now.
Take your history revisionist bullshit, onto another site.
Obama just can’t Canada, to tell them that his stance on Nafta, was all rhetoric, just as his campaign staffer came forward and outed that his views on the Iraq War were also bull.
KCG, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
Obama has made it CLEAR, he is against gay marriage, and is in the same boat as Hillary, and he was even a bit shaky on the civil union issue as well.
Hillary is all for civil unions.
You wrote: “he told gays to treat Homophobes with dignity”.
First of all, he didn’t say that. He said that we have to engage with people we disagree with, which is kind of, I don’t know, the JOB of the President and any elected leader worth their salt.
Our community has far too often taken an “all or nothing” approach to advancing our interests. Too often we demonize reasonable people on the other side of the aisle because they hold antiquated or incorrect views.
We get nowhere by demozining people. Sure we might a win a battle or two but in the long run we don’t form meaningful catalytic relationships that ultimately lead to much bigger change.
If you’re with the “if they’re not with us, they’re against us” crowd then, well, we can agree to disagree.
However, if you’re part of the reasonable majority that realizes that we need to stress our outreach to allies and enemies, then we can talk.
Typical White Person
The fact that Hillary Clinton seems to piss off so many members of the mainstream media is reason enough to vote for her.
However, let’s try and remember that it doesn’t matter if this guy gave a thousand bucks to her campaign or not. What matters is that JOHN McINSANE does not become our next President.
To Al (2):
You wrote: “Obama has made it CLEAR, he is against gay marriage, and is in the same boat as Hillary, and he was even a bit shaky on the civil union issue as well.”
You are only partially correct. Obama has indeed stated that he does not currently support the phrase “gay marriage” due to the fact that the phrase is a non-starter with the opposition. He prefers an incremental approach that will get gays and lesbians exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples as quickly as possible. This is the same stance as Hillary Clinton on this issue.
As to civil unions, you’re just flat wrong. You can easily pull up this official statement on the barackobama.com website under LGBT issues:
â€œBarack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.â€
Pray, tell me how to find any mention of LGBT issues on the Clinton website or her strident support of civil unions.
I live in Philadelphia, and can tell you that Mark Segal does NOT speak for the gay community here! He is an irrelevant has-been, much more interested in good-ole-boy politics than in truth and integrity.
He promoted John Street, well-known as one of the worst mayors Philadelphia has ever had, and keep saying how great he was for the gay community.
It is no surprise that he is supporting Clinton – She also epitomizes the failed politics of the past.
To Al and his friends, just a data point and thought exercise for you.
Go to http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/ and let me know where you see mention of any LGBT issues there [hint: there’s nothing there].
Now go to http://www.barackobama.com/people/ and check out Obama’s front-and-center issues discussion on LGBT matters.
FYI for anyone that want to check out and comment on another article on this issue (that fails to mention the conflict of interest): http://www.haloscan.com/comments/pinknews/obama_gaypress/?src=hsn
KCG: please stop MAKING THINGS UP! Youâ€™re not alone in believing that federal DOMA â€œprohibit[s] interstate recognition of gay marriagesâ€ but youâ€™re still 100% WRONG. The EXACT language of Section 2:
“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, SHALL BE REQUIRED to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”. – http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104
Again, from the mouth of OBAMA’S OWN Constitution expert and supporter:
â€œOBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitutionâ€™s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies. [In relation to state recognition] â€œSAME-SEX COUPLES â€¦ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALEDâ€¦.â€
Please DOCUMENT ONE TIME that Obama NOT YOU has suggested that he sees â€œcivil unionsâ€ as â€œincremental.â€ He may support the repeal of the federal definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman but he has REPEATED emphasized:
â€œI do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.â€ – http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/
If Obama genuinely believes his version of civil unions would â€œgive same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couplesâ€ when can I expect him to trade my civil union for his marriage? If he does it before April 15th, income tax filing time, Iâ€™ll throw in a toaster.
The poor placement on Sen. Clintonâ€™s site of her support for gay rights doesnâ€™t mean it doesnâ€™t exist anymore than it changes the fact that both she and John Edwards had statements about their support on their sites months before Obama did.
Among other things it states that she:
â€¢ Supports civil unions. Hillary will work to ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits — from health insurance to life insurance, property rights, and more.
– Throughout her Senate career, Hillary has been an original cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act….
– As Chair of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, she met with leaders of the LGBT community to come up with a smart strategy to stop FMA…..
– Hillary is an original co-sponsor of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act….
– Hillary is an original cosponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which would grant the same benefits, including health insurance, to domestic partners of federal employees….
– Hillary wrote the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which expands access to vital treatment options for low-income individuals living with HIV…
– Hillary secured $500,000 for the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center in New York….
In addition to saying she will â€œEnd Donâ€™t Ask Donâ€™t Tell,â€ she DOESNâ€™T suggest consulting with the Pentagon about it as Obama ludicrously does. When would he meet with the foxes to discuss better conditions for the chickens?
Hillaryâ€™s policy statement on AIDS calls for at least $20 billion more in funding. Obamaâ€™s ONLY CALLS for FIVE billion more. WHY?
She criticized Col. Pace for calling gays â€œimmoralâ€ before Obama said anythingâ€”and when told some didnâ€™t think it strong enough, apologized and remphasized her disagreement while, for example, when Obama was begged to dump Donnie â€œgays are trying to kill our childrenâ€ McClurkin he refused.
She released a statement condemning the murder of Lawrence King before Obama did.
She was interviewed by LOGO TV News. Obama refused.
She was interviewed by â€œThe Washington Blade.â€ Obama refused.
She was interviewed by Ohioâ€™s â€œGay Peoples Chronicleâ€ before their primary. Obama refused but took out a pretty ad.
As for the continuing McClurkingate nonsense praising Obama for saying we should â€œlisten toâ€ our oppressors:
“I simply don’t believe that Obama would have the same reaction, be just as welcoming, if we were talking about racists or anti-Semites. He wouldn’t say that we’re all one big tent. He would kick the racist or the anti-Semite to the curb. I’ve never heard a politician invoke the big tent to mean racists and their victims. So the best way to promote tolerance is to tolerate and embrace intolerance?” – John Aravosis, AmericaBlog
Finally, IF WE ARE SO IMPORTANT TO OBAMA why can you find not one sentence, not one word, not one syllable about us in his official manifesto, the 64-page â€œBlueprint for Change-Barack Obamaâ€™s Plan for America.â€ Not even in the logical sections to look for us.
Not even under its â€œBarack Obamaâ€™s Plans to Strengthen Civil Rightsâ€ section.
Not even under its â€œExpand Hate Crimes Statutesâ€ section or its â€œBarack Obamaâ€™s Plan to Strengthen Our Militaryâ€ section.
Not even anything about AIDS under the â€œBarack Obamaâ€™s Plan for A Healthy Americaâ€ section.
Are WE not Americans, too?
hells kitchen guy
If you support clinton and not Obama, that doesn’t make you ipso facto a racist.
If you support Obama and not Hillary, that does not make you ipso facto a misogynist.
The people arguing the above are beyond stupid.
I support Obama. Just thought i needed to say that before what I’m about to say.
Just because he is a hillary supporter doesn’t make his point less valid. Could you say that Obama supporters’ critiques about Mccain aren’t valid because we support Obama? I don’t agree with what the reporter asserted in the article but the fact that he supports Hillary seems completely irrelevant to me.
I wonder how much Queerty donated to Obama?
By the way, The Advocate isn’t the only gay publication Obama’s talked to lately.
He’s also talked to the black gay publication PULSE:
I wonder how Mark Segal missed that?
To Phoenix Woman:
Good catch! It just demonstrates what a low-rank bar rag the Philly Gay News really is.
I’m not gay, but I’ll point out 2 simple facts.
1. Hillary has said that she will not repeal the entire “Defense of Marriage Act” (that her husband signed into law) that allows the Federal and State governments to not recognize gay marriages from other states.
2. Obama has said that he _will_ repeal the act in its entirety.
Now, you tell me: who has the gay’s interests at heart?
Hillary is a wolf in sheep’s clothing! She supported DOMA, “don’t ask don’t tell”, etc.
Open your eyes, people!
Obama supporters have pointed out that information regarding his position on LGBT rights can be obtained from the http://www.barackobama.com under People->LGBT.
Clinton supporters have now pointed out that information regarding her position on LGBT rights can be obtained through this URL: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/lgbt but I can not figure out how that information can be obtained from the Clinton home page. For example, a casual visitor to http://www.hillaryclinton.com might want to review her positions on various issues. How would that person find the LGBT page?
If there is an easy way to get there that I just missed, would someone please reply to this comment with the menu choices to get to Clintonâ€™s LGBT information.
If there is no way to navigate to that page from the home page, that would be disturbing.
Here’s Obama’s new Advocate interview:
Wow, I just read the Advocate article above and talk about an honest and frank exchange. Truly brilliant. Here is my follow-up email to the PGN:
Mark and Sarah,
As I’m sure you’ve seen by now, Senator Barack Obama gave a wide-ranging interview to the Advocate on Monday.
From his interview, I hope you’ll note some key passages:
“The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot, why the silence on gay issues? You’ve only done one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.
Sen. Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say silence on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.
But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community, when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.
So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on â€¦ I promise you the African-American press says the same thing.”
I believe this echoes my earlier correspondence with you, where I have emphasized the importance of Obama’s speaking out on our behalf in front of general audiences, including audiences that may be otherwise hostile to the issues important to our community. In my opinion, I believe that this is far more important to our interests than giving interviews to specialized press. As Obama said in his interview:
“I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box â€“ that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.”
I am sure you will enjoy reading the article, as Obama addresses a wide range of LGBT issues, including the need for eliminating homophobia, ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and repealing DOMA.
As I mentioned in my earlier emails, I would suggest researching a story on Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign and whether she has ever spoken out on LGBT issues in front of a general audience, especially in front of an audience that would otherwise be expected to be hostile to our issues.
I look forward to reading your thoughts in the next issue of the PGN.
Here are two posts I put up on the Obama Advocate article on MyDD and Kos:
Thanks, KCG; let s hear Clinton do “damage control” with that!
BTW: I did write Segal , he answered but nothing new.
Holy cow I wasnt expecting that from him
Comments are closed.