| According to HRC, the very existence of the organization is dedicated to ".....HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights...."
That HRC is demanding that Senator Obama cancels his scheduled campaign appearance with an ostensibly unpalatable character in order to pacify an organization that many others regard as equally unpalatable is, again in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy. Does HRC not believe that other people have equally pressing needs and opinions, and that those needs and opinions are also "Rights" worth protecting? Is HRC stating that when someone else's rights collide with their members' then only their members' rights deserve to be protected? Does one not have a right to hold opinions and beliefs, however lunatic and extreme those opinions might be? Isn't there a constitutional right for a stupid person? Or does stupidity make one less entitled to rights worthy of protection?
Let it be said that the Democratic Party is deemed (rightly so) to be the party of inclusiveness. We like to tout the fact that we have a bigger tent and accommodate more shades of characters than the other major party. We do not strive to create outcasts or discriminate against individuals or entities based on their "differences".
HRC cannot be advancing the interests of one segment of the society, asking that they be treated as the equal part of the society and at the same time be DEMANDING that the same rights and platform they seek for their constituents be denied others. That is reversed discrimination, and it not does not positively help advance HRC's causes.
The Democratic Party needs the maximum support and inclusiveness it can get from every part of the society. Yes, this position opens up the possibility that we will have amongst us a number of people, beliefs and opinions with which a large part of "Big Tent" will disgree, and with which they will be uncomfortable. But, that is what inclusiveness is all about. The diversity of opinions and beliefs creates a fertile ground for us to understand our differences and work towards reconciling them. The other major has made the art of pitting several segments of the society against one another its exlusive purview. I say let them continue to do so. We do not need to emulate such discrimination and divisiveness. Much as it may distress many within the Democratic Party, the evangelicals in this country are viable, strong and, yes, Americans. They vote, too, and they have voices that also need to be heard.
We cannot and should not seek to silence people with whom we disagree. If HRC truly believes in equal rights for ALL (and not just for their GLBT constituents), then it must be willing to work with others to advance that cause, rather than seeking to ostracize people it deems antagonistic to its cause. I suggest that, rather than DEMANDING that our candidates (nay our party) not work with others it doesn't like, HRC can do better and find more sympathetic ears by actively championing the expansive inclusivness that having those people within the tent presents.
Politics is about elections. Elections is a numbers game. Sinister as that might sound, it is a fact. We cannot continue to cede the religious grounds to the other party - there are too many of us in the Democratic Party who are truly religious and would like to have our positions and concerns listened to. I am a Democrat because I believe that it is the better of the two major parties when it comes to diversity of beliefs and opinions. HRC is not doing us any favor by striving to stiffle that diversity - it is what makes us better than the "other side".
UPDATED COMMENTARY:
On discrimination:
"I don't believe that even from a religious point of view that Jesus ever discriminated toward anyone, nor do I. Most of the things that were said were totally out of context and then other things weren't true."
Does he mean that this is all a manufactured outrage? I hope someone gets back with documented facts that debunks this assertion.
On what he's doing hanging with Obama:
"My only concern is to be in place with Sen. Obama in unity and bring all the factors together for the sake of change.....That's my only thing. Of course some agents have twisted it as though he [Obama] were embracing a racist or a Nazi, and that is anything but true."
Hmmmm...... maybe the facts will show otherwise.
A believer?:
"'I believe in his stance. I believe in his platform and his agenda. So when they asked me if I would be a part of it, there was no problem,' said McClurkin, who has performed at both parties' conventions and identifies himself as a Democrat. 'We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on the main thing: that there needs to be change and I believe he is the candidate to bring it.'"
Why so anti-gay?:
.....his ministry is open to those who say they no longer want to live as a gay person. What he doesn't do, he says, is crusade against homosexuality."
On "curing homosexuality":
"There's never been a statement made by me about curing homosexuality. People are using that in order to incite anger and to twist my whole platform on it. There's no crusade for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change."
Will this pacify HRC and its supporters? What? Not even if we add the fact that there is now an openly-gay Minister on the same platform, providing a counter-balance to the damage that McClurkin (regardless of his protestation to the contrary) may be doing to the GLBT community?
For the sake of sanity and objectivity, I hope it does. |
