What does Oprah‘s political love for Obama mean for the gays?
Oprah Winfrey recently stepped into the political arena to support Barack Obama. While Obama may be loving the boost, one Washington Blade reader sees Winfrey’s endorsement as a move against the gays:
[Winfrey’s] her “chosen one” is a candidate who would unquestionably deny gay Americans their full and equal civil rights, especially when it comes to same-sex marriage.
“I am somebody who has not embraced gay marriage. I’ve said that it’s not something that I think the society is necessarily ready for. And it strikes me that in a lot of ways for a lot of people, it may intrude in how they understand marriage,” Obama stated on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in late 2006.
…
And as she tries to take America down an enlightened path in this presidential campaign, is Oprah’s endorsement of Obama more about being an instrument of racial equality in this country, by finally getting a black man elected to the highest office in this nation, than it is about the annoying and politically divisive issue of marriage equality? Is Oprah choosing, like many African-Americans ministers have done, which issue is more important for our black communities?
It seems to us that Oprah’s move isn’t anti-gay. Of all the Democratic front-runners, none support gay marriage. Face it, folks, the Democrats aren’t going to make America magically equal. It’s simply not going to happen. If it works, Oprah’s Obama-endorsement could help move a black man into the White House. That would be a pretty monumental feat – and perhaps even more historically astounding than gay marriage.
Note we said “If” Oprah’s endorsement works. Check out these numbers from a recent Pew poll on celebrity political endorsements:
Respondents said Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — she has stumped and raised funds for him — will have essentially no effect on getting their vote, but they still think it could help his run for the White House.
According to the survey, 15% said Oprah’s endorsement would make them more likely to vote for Obama, while the same 15% said it would make them less likely and 69% said it would make no difference. That is down from a 2000 poll that found that 14% said her endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate and 11% less likely.
But 60% still said they thought Oprah’s support would help his overall candidacy, while only 3% said it would hurt, although how that squares with the vote results is not clear.
Even this Big O may not be able to sway this election.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
BillieXX
Without a doubt, the dumbest editorial in human history. Even worse than my own drivel!! I doubt very much the Washington Blade would have composed the same type of noise if Ms. O was backing Clinton or Edwards (who by the way also are not into same-sex marriage).
Dawster
Washington Blade reader… your a dumbass.
now… go look for WMD’s in Iraq. i’m sure you’ll find them too.
i like Obama… he’s the man!
3Dspleen
From the quoted article: “According to the survey, 15% said Oprah’s endorsement would make them more likely to vote for Obama, while the same 15% said it would make them less likely”
Um, wouldn’t it be more accurate to have said that a *different* 15% would make them less likely to vote for him?
Anyhow, I agree. I think it’s nearsighted to say that an endorsement of Obama is anti-gay just because he doesn’t say he supports marriage equality. Kucinich is not going to get elected. If he were the Democratic candidate, I think we would most likely have a Repugnant president for another 4 years. Now *that’s* anti-gay.
Gregg
If Obama or Clinton gets the nom, there is no way the Dems will win. That is reality. When are people going to face it?
Leland Frances
Technically Obama’s position may be no less supportive of marriage equality than the others, but none of them brag about how much Black churches have influenced him, the majority of which rabidly oppose gay rights. If you think I’m being too critical, Google Black lesbian minister Irene Monroe’s many commentaries about him.
As for O, a more accurate response is that her endorsement is no “more” antigay than her history. I’m sick of the myth that Oprah is Miss Gay Friendly when the only evidence is that she’s friends with some gays—as long as they’re celebrities. She collects celebrity friends the way she collects shoes and houses and all the other things an obsessive-compulsive conspicuous consumer like her collects. Remember that one of her biggest confrontation and miles of publicity was about being denied after hours entrance to Hermes’ Paris store. Note: not being arrested at a demonstration for even Black civil rights or women’s rights but over the opportunity to shop.
As for her Saint of the Gays credentials: why does she feel the need to ever, let alone repeatedly, deny she’s gay? She still serves up finally out Nate Berkus, her personal Pocket Gay, to her audience as if he were straight hottie catnip. (Her much-praised show with him after his “partner†was killed in the tsunami never once used the word “gay†or “lover.†One writer to her site said she was so sorry to learn Nate had lost his BUSINESS “partner.”)
When it was peaking as the most talked about, most critically acclaimed film in a decade, she could only spare 25 minutes to the cast of “Brokeback Mountain,†devoting the other half to Tyler Perry’s tired drag character. I guess “Ennis†and “Jack†were just too nonstereotypical for her, but, hey, a huge black guy in a dress and Oprah’s rolling on the floor laughing her rich ass off. Before cutting to Perry, she did, of course, take time to ask the actors if they were “nervous†about kissing each other.
Whenever she has a woman on who’s been involved with a gay man, like McGreevey’s wife, she ALWAYS asks, “but couldn’t you tell he was gay?†Will gaydometers been on sale in her magazine soon? She made a star out of the loathsome author of the book on the down low while allowing him to reinforce some of the most hateful myths about gay men still around. Recently she had on some pro football player who was publicly talking about being molested as a boy. The one point in the show she teared up was when a therapist kept assuring him, “You did nothing wrong. You’re still a MAN!†as if any kind of same sex behavior might make him any different, something “less than.†Then there’s the question she always repeats during the rare instances when the subject of gay oppression/discrimination is allowed on, “Do gay people STILL have problems?â€
Yes, Bitch, we do. And you are more a part of those problems than the solution.
juliansorl
I’m 41 and in a monogamous relationship for over 16 years. I’m voting for, and financially supporting, the candidate who supports equal rights for all citizens which would obviously include gay marriage -period. Yes, when it comes to the big election, I will probably have to pick between the lesser of two evils, but until then – I’m not selling out my causes for some half baked coalition where my vote and moneys are co-opted and my cause compromised. What is this an IDIOTACRACY? NO WAY!
BillieXX
Oh jeesh. Not the black church line again. Yes let’s be critical when the black church takes an anti-gay stance. No debate there; however, let’s not act like all of the black church is getting behind the anti-gay train. According to the folk at Pew Research only 14 percent of black Protestants gave their vote to Bush in 2004. Yes there are a number of black religious folk who are turning to the GOP due to same-sex marriage, but not as many as assumed here.
Matt
Excellent point, juliansorl! I really hadn’t thought about it that way. The primaries are very much an opportunity for interest groups within the “party” to make their preferences known. The “Gay Vote” alone will not propel an unelectable candidate to the nomination, but it can send a message to the eventual nominee that we’re interested. Of course come next November I’ll rally round whoever’s not the Republican, because realpolitik is realpolitik, and a Dem is generally better for th’homos than a continuation the dreck we’ve been living through (we can all dump on the Clinton admin for not being particularly rainbow-y, but overall was that a better environment for GLBTs than now? I tend to think so.) Anyway, excellent point. And congrats on the 16 years.
afrolito
Stupidest editorial ever.
Oprah can support any candidate she chooses. She is not anti-gay, and neither is Barack Obama. His stance on gay marriage is probably in step with any of the other democratic candidates. Face it, no one is running on a pro=gay marriage platform, and none of them ever will. Get over it.
To Leland Francis:
Oprah doesn’t owe any special allegiance to the gay community that i’m aware of. She’s not gay (and there’s nothing wrong with her saying that)the last I checked. She’s a black woman most definetely, but the idea that she is supporting Barack just because he’s black is insulting. White people have been voting in lock step for white candidates for over 200 fucking years. Barack is making history, but he’s also highly intelligent and accomplished in his own right. I’m thrilled that he’s running, and would love to see him win.
Oprah is not the enemy, and not the cause of gay problems, and neither is the black church.
hisurfer
I’d love to see a poll that showed what the top issues are for gays in this election. As someone said in an earlier post, gay marriage is #9 or 10 on his list. That’s probably higher than it is on mine this round. War, the environment, restoring the constitution, restoring international alliances, improving our food supply, health care, urban sprawl … shoots, I think I’d put ‘resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict’ higher on the lists of issues that impact most of us.
‘Gay marriage’ isn’t even in my top five lists of gay-specific issues. Health Care, action on HIV/AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse in our community, immigration rights, and rights for queers in the military are all far more important to me.
No offense to those of you for whom this is a prime issue. We all fight for what we believe in. Just please remember that marriage is not the only gay-issue out there, and you (I’m looking at you, Washington Blade editors) don’t get to decide who’s “anti-gay” based solely on your own issues.
juliansorl
We all have our own issues, that goes with out saying. But coalitions and compromises are really last resorts and only truly successful when no one is happy. So I am asking, why sell the farm now when we don’t have to?
Matt
I’m with hisurfer too (I’m just in such an agreeable mood today). I frankly don’t care whether I can marry my fella or not, but I do care about having equal rights applied to like-relationships. (If the het majority gets all icky-feeling about calling it “marriage” and that’s all that stands in the way of equality, call it “buttfuckaroo” for all I care, but include me in on the state-sanctioned husband/wife privileges and benefits please.) There are bigger fish to fry right now anyway. BUT while we’re all tapping our toes waiting for the convention, it would do us well to put some force behind whomever pushes the most of whatever buttons we’re interested in.
fightingwords
It is absolutely astonishing to me how so many of you, who have never entered a black church, seem to think you’re suddenly experts on what takes place within them. As a queer woman who spent the first ten years of her life in the Pentacostal church and whose family is, largely, still quite active, there’s no “rabid” homophobia in the pulpit–at least not more so than in the white churches, Protestant and Catholic, that I have attended.
But keep on deluding yourselves, setting up enemies where they don’t exist. You’re only helping those who oppress us all because of our sexual orientation, while turning your backs on those of us who also get saddled with racial oppression on a daily basis from both straight AND gay white racists.
Thanks. We needed that.
Bill Perdue
I think there are two important questions being debated here.
The can be expressed first in a simple algebraic formula. Candidate A for the Democratic nomination hates the other candidates B, C, D, E, F because they are:
a.Misogynist (they don’t support a woman’s absolute and unqualified right to abortion or use foulmouthed bigot terms like ‘bitch’ when referring to women)
b.Antigay (meaning against full equality, samesex marriage, etc.)
c.Pro war (meaning they oppose full and immediate withdrawal of US troops, convening an International War Crimes Tribunal and impeachment of Cheney and Bush.)
d. Unwilling to propose prohibitive fines, protracted jail terms, loss of IRS tax exemptions and other stern measures to SUPPRESS the racist, sexist and antigay bigots and groups who alone are responsible for hate crimes.)
e. Soft on Big Business and Hard on Labor
f. Unwilling to legislate against landlords, pharmaceutical companies, credit card companies, mortgage companies, and ad nausea.
In this case, as with the Republicans, the formula is ABCDEF=abcdef or expressed differently, they’re all fucking worthless and would cheerfully sacrifice us for their careers and their chance that becoming very, very rich, which is why they’re running for office in the first place.
The second is the outrageous claim that all African American churches are antigay or that Oprah or other public figures are antigay because they support Obama.
Obama, like Clinton and the other candidates oppose full equality for gays and lesbians but if the public figures who support Obama can be branded antigay, and they’re Democrats so it’s plausible, then we can also brand Clinton supporters as antigay because DOMA and DADT are benchmarks of the Clinton record. Tit for tat. Or we can stick to the real issue, which is why on earth people expect up to support any of them.
Without studies or polls from reputable non-racist sources to prove it, It’s simply errant racism to claim that the majority of African American churches rabidly oppose GLBT rights. Some do, some don’t.
Before the 2004 election Bushbrain Rove bribed churches with ‘faith based’ charitable grants (read new beemer and mc mansion). It worked and the rabbis, ministers, priests, mullah, pastors and other assorted grand gaseous gazoos singed on the dotted line, got their bribes and endorsed traditional antigay values. Nobody batted an eye because this came on the heels of bigot Bill Clinton’s ringing endorsement of DOMA and his signature on the bill, which made bigotry the law of the land and left us out in the cold.
Don’t blame Oprah or African American churches for the crimes of the Clintons. I’m sure Oprah has plenty to be criticized for but endorsing the candidate of her choice is not one of them.
daniel11211
get a grip- there’s more to worry about than whether we can get married. we have
much bigger issues to focus on
plus- why would anyone endorse same-sex marriage? it’s political suicide
rock
Leland, to me you said it perfectly. There is no doubt based upon years of Oprah that she is homophobic and ironically if she is a lesbian and Stedman her Gay beard, then she is a self loathing homosexual.
Oprah as Leland has shown is very homophobic. I am not surprised one bit that Oprah is also supporting another homophobe: Barak Obama, who has publicly stated that his religious beliefs are such that he has issues with homosexuality and opposes same sex marriage, which is also ironic because he goes on to point out that his parents were not legally able to marry in many states because they were a biracial couple. One would think that he would understand discrimination and oppose it…..apparently not so.
I have no use for Obama nor Oprah. Both have demonstrated their homophobia and why would I want to support a homophobe for President? why would any of us?
hisurfer
No citizen should trust any politician, so saying “I don’t trust Hillary” or “I don’t trust Obama” comes across as a bit naive,as if it’s all something shocking or scandalous or new.
With that, Clinton I promised us the moon & then sold us down river (sorry for the mixed metaphor; I can’t seem to straighten it out). I’m much more comfortable with Mme. Clinton telling us that she won’t be delivering us the moon.
I’m still hoping someone calls Obama on his “religion”. I read an interview from his pastor in Chicago, and according to him the church is inclusive. Obama’s issues are his alone; they aren’t coming from his church.
I wish I could find the interview, it was fascinating. Apparently the Church is very leftie, and very active in social causes. Obama has been keeping his distance so he doesn’t get tagged as a radical.
rock
Hisurfer…would you mind pointing out which poster said they don’t “trust” Obama or Clinton. I don’t see one poster stating that at all.
If you were referring to my post, well I didn’t mention that I don’t trust them. I didn’t even use the word “trust”. I stated that I won’t support Clinton and Obama based upon their views (and I might add not just on their positon on same sex marriage).
hisurfer
Rock – it was more of a general thought, as each time either name comes up the forum is filled with comments about why the one in question is deceitful.
Although reading back, this thought probably should’ve gone to the Hillary link, as she gets more comments like this.
rock
ah ok, hisurfer..thanks for the clarification:)
Big A
Excuse me, I marched in the Boston Gay Pride Parade along with members of the Obama campaign on behalf of Obama. We had stickers with the Obama rainbow in full rainbow colors. This was fully endorsed by Obama. Yet the Clinton camp seemed to be missing. How do you miss one of the largest pride parades around and call yourself a supporter of gay rights? Obama has expressed that Gay Couples should have full rights that are equal to marriage. Hillary still has not made up her mind. Clinton (both) backed “don’t ask don’t tell.” Clinton signed the defense of marriage act! Both Clinton’s turned their backs on the Gay community untill they needed them. To hell with Hellary!
Tod
Actually Oprah’s probably done more for gays than anyone else in America:
While Phil Donahue has been credited with pioneering the tabloid talk show genre, what has been described as the warmth, intimacy and personal confession Winfrey brought to the format is believed to have both popularized and revolutionized it. In the scholarly text Freaks Talk Back, Yale sociology professor Joshua Gamson credits the tabloid talk show genre with providing much needed high impact media visibility for gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgender people and doing more to make them mainstream and socially acceptable than any other development of the 20th century. In the book’s editorial review Michael Bronski wrote “In the recent past, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people had almost no presence on television. With the invention and propagation of tabloid talk shows such as Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Oprah, and Geraldo, people outside the sexual mainstream now appear in living rooms across America almost every day of the week.”
An example of one such show by Winfrey occurred in the 1980s where for the entire hour, members of the studio audience stood up one by one, gave their name and announced that they were gay. Also in the 1980s Winfrey took her show to West Virginia to confront a town gripped by AIDS paranoia because a gay man living in the town had HIV. Winfrey interviewed the man who had become a social outcast, the town’s mayor who drained a swimming pool in which the man had gone swimming, and debated with the town’s hostile residents. “But I hear this is a God fearing town,” Winfrey scolded the homophobic studio audience; “where’s all that Christian love and understanding?” During a show on gay marriage in the 1990s, a woman in Winfrey’s audience stood up to complain that gays were constantly flaunting their sex lives and she announced that she was tired of it. “You know what I’m tired of”, replied Winfrey, “heterosexual males raping and sodomizing young girls. That’s what I’m tired of.” Her rebuttal inspired a screaming standing ovation from that show’s studio audience.
Gamson credits the tabloid talk show fad with making alternative sexual orientations and identities more acceptable in mainstream society. Examples include a recent Time magazine article describing early 21st century gays coming out of the closet younger and younger and gay suicide rates plummeting. Gamson also believes that tabloid talk shows caused gays to be embraced on more traditional forms of media. Examples include sitcoms like Will & Grace, primetime shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Oscar nominated feature films like Brokeback Mountain.
While having changed with the times from her tabloid talk show roots, Winfrey continues to include gay guests by using her show to promote openly gay personalities like her hairdresser Andre Walker, makeup artist Reggie Wells, and decorator Nate Berkus who inspired an outpouring of sympathy from middle America after grieving the loss of his partner in the 2004 tsunami on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Winfrey’s “therapeutic” hosting style and the tabloid talk show genre has been credited or blamed for leading the media counterculture of the 1980s and 1990s which some believe broke 20th century taboos, led to America’s self-help obsession, and created confession culture. The Wall Street Journal coined the term “Oprahfication” which means public confession as a form of therapy.
In April 1997, Winfrey played the therapist on the sitcom Ellen to whom the character (and the real-life Ellen DeGeneres) said she was a lesbian. In 1998, Mark Steyn in the National Review wrote of Winfrey “Today, no truly epochal moment in the history of the Republic occurs unless it is validated by her presence. When Ellen said, ‘Yep! I’m gay,’ Oprah was by her side, guesting on the sitcom as (what else?) the star’s therapist.”