A Stitch in Haste

Since Barack Obama is, qua politician, a moral defective anyway, I saw little need to weigh in on the latest manifestation of said moral defectiveness — his embracing of an unrepentant anti-gay (worse — "ex-gay") bigot theocrat, Donnie McClurkin, in a vote-seeking pander to the (overwhelmingly anti-gay) black Evangelical base.

Then I came across this gobbledygook by way of another gay blog:

We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

To which my response is:

This of course completely evades the question of why I should want to be part of such a tent.

Could you imagine gay-friendly, or even gay-apathetic, Republicans telling gays to embrace a (strictly hypothetical) "inclusive" conservative candidate because that candidate "is constructing a tent big enough for the Log Cabin Republicans and the Westboro Baptist Church"? Of course not.

The only way to rationalize such an indefensible position is via the lingering — and hopefully increasingly invalid — belief that all gays are presumptively Democrats, who all presumptively embrace any and every Democratic candidate, despite any and every "innocent" mistake they may make.

And isn't it ironic that many of these same "cut Obama some slack" Democrat-at-all-costs apologists for McClurkin are undoubtedly the same "no compromise under any circumstances" community-at-all-costs people who damned Barney Frank over his "betrayal" of the transgendered in the ongoing "ENDA-T conundrum"?

One man's "litmus test" is another man's "principled stance." Calling it one in one instance and the other in another instance is every man's "hypocrisy."

An adapted version of a comment I left on another blog after self-loathing homosexual Donnie McClurkin spit in the face of both his fellow gays and his host, Barack Obama:

Certain branches of Christianity are more missionary than others. The ex-gay subsect of the Evangelical movement is among the most obsessive-compulsive missionary groups in all of Christendom. It is a fundamental premise of their franchise never to shut up about the purported evils -- and curability -- of homosexuality. "God commands that I speak out about it!" -- etc.

So while I of course applaud post facto indignation and activism, no one -- least of all Obama's campaign staff (who had an affirmative obligation to vet performers beforehand) -- was really entitled to be surprised by McClurkin's despicable behavior.

For those unaware of what that despicable behavior was:

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried. "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.

Video footage here.

It's refreshing to see a greater intolerance toward intolerance among young gays. I've often wondered, given their youth, if they truly appreciate, for example, just how loathsome and curseworthy Hillary Clinton is for continuing to support (or at least refusing to apologize and act to undo) her pervert husband's betrayal of gays, not once (DOMA) but twice (DADT). It's nice to see that so many of the next generation have learned the lessons of the past and are now applying Scotty's Rule and putting Obama (and, one would hope, his fellow moral defectives) on notice: This is not acceptable. If you want our votes, then you better start earning them. (Note that the "ENDA-T conundrum" reflects a similar if somewhat less cut-and-dry manifestation of the same "don't take us for granted" mindset.)

Gays, especially liberal Democrat gays (of which I am not one) are yearning for someone, anyone, to whom they can hitch their political wagon without holding their noses. They can now cross Obama off their list.

More coverage at PHB, The Weekly Standard, Andrew Sullivan (who omits McClurkin's use of the word "suffered" in declaring, "he doesn't say anything homophobic as such" -- Sullivan is being far too generous there).

To review: John Edwards is "not there yet." "There" meaning the Twenty-First Century and its quite modest expectation that gays not be irrationally discriminated against in the name of primitive dogma and un-Christian hate.

Neither "there" yet are an embarrassingly large number of (mostly self-anointed) gay "leaders" who are going out of their way to tell the world that it's perfectly okay to be "not there yet." (PDF - 3 pages)

As the Democratic presidential nominee, John Edwards would represent nothing less than the chance to alter the conventional foundations of American politics. Edwards demonstrates strong leadership, not only on the critical issues facing the LGBT community, but also by offering bold ideas like guaranteeing universal health care to every man, woman and child in this nation, ending poverty in this country during our lifetime, and stopping global warming while creating hundreds of thousands of quality American jobs in a new energy economy.

Translation:

We are liberals first, indignant gays second. We are therefore willing, indeed eager, to embrace a presidential candidate who openly acknowledges that he has a backward, dysfunctional moral code that blinds him to our interests, needs and entitlements.

We see no shame in this. Indeed we take pride in it. We have no difficulty in exposing our fickleness and demonstrating to the entire Democratic Party that we are perfectly willing to be exploited -- yet again.

We are perfectly content to forget how the last "not there yet" Democratic president betrayed us not once but twice. And we are perfectly willing to be betrayed again. We welcome it.

Because we are liberals first, indignant gays second.

One week ago I blogged the following:

It's refreshing to see a greater intolerance toward intolerance among young gays. I've often wondered, given their youth, if they truly appreciate, for example, just how loathsome and curseworthy Hillary Clinton is for continuing to support (or at least refusing to apologize and act to undo) her pervert husband's betrayal of gays, not once (DOMA) but twice (DADT). It's nice to see that so many of the next generation have learned the lessons of the past and are now applying Scotty's Rule and putting Obama (and, one would hope, his fellow moral defectives) on notice: This is not acceptable. If you want our votes, then you better start earning them.

So much for that idea.

---

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that Edwards is an anti-gay candidate. He is not, at least nominally. (Then again, neither was Bill Clinton -- nominally.) My indignation is toward these gay "leaders" who are going out of their way to omit Edwards' positions on gay issues and focus instead on some laughable gobbledygook about the superiority of his purported "fifty-state strategy" and the presumption that all gays concur with his radical liberal, socialized medicine, protectionist, class warfare agenda -- which these gay signatories seem to value more than his position on ENDA or DADT. Shame on them.

Via Good As You. Here is one signatory's explanation of his support for Edwards.