Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his “I Have A Dream” speech and spoke of the day when people would be judged by the content of their character. I am not sure that the recent controversy over singer Donnie McClurkin is what MLK had in mind. McClurkin is a deeply religious man who says that God delivered him from being gay. That reportedly led to his being told that he was no longer welcomed at the anniversary performance of the speech.
McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the concert Saturday evening but gay rights activities objected to his participation ahead of the event.
Yet, Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Mayor Vincent Gray, insisted that it was McClurkin who removed himself from the lineup to avoid controversy over his participation. She issued a statement that “[t]he Arts and Humanities Commission and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together.”
McClurkin however contradicted that account and said that he did not agree to be excluded. He states that he was “asked not to attend” the concert. That is quite a difference in accounts. Where the Mayor’s office is claiming that he removed himself, he is saying that he was barred because of his religious beliefs.
I can understand the feelings of gay rights advocates, particularly given the clear analogies of their own current struggle with the fight of Martin Luther King. However, the greater symbol of division can be found in barring people who share their admiration for MLK but subscribe to opposing religious views. I am equally concerned over what McClurkin is clearly suggesting is a false account from the office of Mayor Gray on the matter. The burden is now on Gray’s office to produce proof that the singer did opt not to attend to avoid controversy.
What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
The city should have just stayed out of it.
There is no such thing as an “ex-gay.” There are bisexuals of course, who find both sexes more or less equally attractive. If a person is bisexual, it is certainly both possible and practical to commit to one or the other in order to keep and maintain a monogamous relationship. Psychologically, that would work in a similar fashion as the heterosexual who finds the opposite sex attractive, but commits to one person. Given the current divorce rate, we can easily see how exclusively heterosexual orientation works out well for maintaining the family unit together. Not.!
Pheromones are funny things, eh?
nick,
I tried to watch “Deadwood” but the anachronistic language use just grated on my nerves. However, I’m a big Ian McShane fan. He was the high spot in “Deadwood” for me. He not only plays a great baddie, he does a good turn at good guys and comedy. He did an excellet series for the BBC called “Lovejoy” where he played a roguish antiques dealer with a penchant for getting involved in mysteries and comedic situations. He’s one of those actors that even if I don’t enjoy the piece he’s in, I always enjoy his performance.
Gene, We’re watching Deadwood on HBO Go. We’re halfway through the first season. We watched 5 seasons of The Wire in less than 2 weeks. I missed those two great series when I was working all the time. Has there ever been a better bad guy on TV than Ian McShane? My wife hates him so much she gets mad @ me when I laugh @ his sarcasm. She married a sarcastic guy, what could she expect? We were in Deadwood in June and I was in the Gem for drinks.
@Juliet N. “BFM: No one is preventing him from living his life, but the people running the rally don’t have to have him there, if they don’t want to. You. know, freedoms and stuff.”
I don’t think anyone is questioning the right of the organizers to determine the content of their event – certainly not me.
But I think you gloss over a couple of important points. This is not just a simple case of organizers making decisions regarding content of their event.
It is, in fact, organizers responding to a political pressure group and acting to exclude someone on the basis of personal aspects of their life.
So far as we know from the story McClurkin had no intention to make a political speech, proselytize for his way of life or otherwise draw attention away from the celebration of MLK.
Aside from the African American community the LGBT community has been as abused as any group in America. It would seem that the LGBT community, above all, would recognize the poisonous effects of exclusion. It would seem that, as much as any other group, the LGBT community would recognize the importance of respect for the individual.
We may question the authenticity of McClurkin’s choices. But isn’t that exactly what anti gay leaders do to the LGBT community. Who exactly has the most authority to make choices for McClurkin’s life.
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of excluding anyone, on the basis of their personal life, from an event celebrating one who dedicated his life to inclusion and non discrimination.
bigfatmike wrote: “It is, in fact, organizers responding to a political pressure group and acting to exclude someone on the basis of personal aspects of their life.”
Exactly right. When the American Psychiatric Association voted by a 65% majority to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders, this was heavily influenced from the politics of the AIDS epidemic and from a letter mailed out to its members from the National Gay Task Force. Another case of politics influencing science.
DavidM: “Exactly right. When the American Psychiatric Association voted by a 65% majority to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders, this was heavily influenced from the politics of the AIDS epidemic and from a letter mailed out to its members from the National Gay Task Force. Another case of politics influencing science.”
First, the area of mental illness is the one area of medicine that absolutely must be influenced by social norms. We cannot call some behavior-based diagnosis “abnormal,” if it isn’t considered unusual behavior by society, as a whole.
Second, I find it amusing that you think religion should influence science, but not politics.
Juliet N wrote: “Second, I find it amusing that you think religion should influence science, but not politics.”
You are not reading very carefully. I never argued that politics should not influence science. I am just stating reality. If politics or religion results in more people using methods of science to get to the truth, that is a good thing. On the other hand, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that just because science votes to take a position on something, that such happens based upon objectivity and empirical proof.
Some scientists have written that voting homosexuality out of the diagnostic manual of mental disorders is one of the worst actions they ever did. It has condemned a whole lot of homosexuals who do not want to stay the way they are to living a less than wholesome life. The scientists who work in the field estimate that about a third of gays can be helped by currently known methods, and this number could improve if there wasn’t so much vitriol in condemning any hint of helping people alter unwanted aspects of their sexuality.
“Davidm2575 said: It has condemned a whole lot of homosexuals who do not want to stay the way they are to living a less than wholesome life”
And who defines a wholesome life? Many hetero and homo secuals lead very wholesome lives, together for decades, same raising children, they have jobs, they pay their taxes, they have hobbies, etc. and some homo and heterosexuals live loves that maybe you would not call :wholesome” And by the way the ability to be legally married helps to make their lives even more “wholesome” because they are now a part of society and the community, except to people like you.
ML King Jr. was against bigotry and hate.
Where’s the problem in dumping an idiot who advocates bigotry and hate?
P Smith wrote: “ML King Jr. was against bigotry and hate. Where’s the problem in dumping an idiot who advocates bigotry and hate?”
Because the people labeling him as advocating for bigotry and hate are wrong. They are actually the ones who are being bigoted and hateful toward McClurkin and others who want to help gays who feel that they need help with their sexuality. The ones disinviting McClurkin are the ones who are bigoted toward the idea that a man cannot change from being gay to being straight. What a disgrace it is to MLK’s memory, to disinvite a black man who is full of love, who believes in equality for everyone, just because he use to be gay.
I can no more change my sexuality than he can his skin color. Can we just accept this is they way genetics work. We are all different. These are not choices.
I think the point becomes he is living a lie and further telling others they should live a lie because he does not like who he is and just the way “God” intended him to be. That just not being honest with yourself or others. Thats saying lying about who you are to be someone you think is better will allow me to succede. That is in absolute conflict with everything Dr. King stood for.
He is living a lie and further telling others its ok and godly to do this. Now that is the reason to say no to Donnie McClurkin. Dr. King did not endorse trying to be white because we like white but be black the way God made you and live your life with honesty to gain the respect of your community.
Free speech versus supporting someone who propagates delusional, misleading ideas? It’s not like he does this as a quiet hobby, like raising orchids or building birdhouses.
nick,
I give that joke a six out of ten stars with a bump to seven (because I’m a Western fan).
And what James K. said.
Gunfight @ The PC Corral.
Sorry. “You know, freedoms and stuff.”
David2575 says strange unsupported nonsense such as “..have successfully left the gay lifestyle…”
What is “the gay life style?” David2575 makes up a uniform fantasy place to place all gay people. They are easier to insult that way.
This is another myth perpetrated by people who have been told to their faces that despite centuries of mistreatment, the onus is now on them to state why words such as David2575’s are not only part of the problem, but until recently, the biggest negative driver of false claims against gay people, and the lives gay people were forced to live as a result.
This biggest threat to straight marriage, for example, is straight people who insist on ending their divorces 50% of the time. No gay person has any hand in that, sorry.
Further, when David2575 insults gay people in 2013, he insults their friends, family, teammates, co-workers and fellow worshipers pretty much immediately thanks to social media. This extended circle has told David2575 that they no longer fear his empty hate-speech.
He is free to continue to embarrass himself with his adolescent view of human sexuality, of course, but the days when he could harm gay people and those who love them with this attitude are thankfully coming to a close.
James Knauer wrote: “David2575 says strange unsupported nonsense such as “..have successfully left the gay lifestyle…””
Unsupported? Do you know the name Charles Socarides? Are you familiar with his research?
Supported by ex-gays such as:
Donnie McClurkin
Richard Cohen
Laurie Campbell – pen name: Erin Eldridge
How many names do you need before you stop lying about it being “unsupported nonsense”? How many websites do you want me to link to, like Narth or ex-gaytruth or voices-of-change?
Jame Knauer wrote: “This biggest threat to straight marriage, for example, is straight people who insist on ending their divorces 50% of the time.”
Agreed. What does this have to do with the false idea that there are no ex-gays?
James Knauer wrote: “the days when he could harm gay people and those who love them with this attitude are thankfully coming to a close.”
I have never harmed a gay person. I love gays, but it is very clear that you do not love me.
Here is a Scientific American article republished on the Huffington Post that gives a more balanced perspective about homosexuality than you do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality–choice-born-science_n_2003361.html
” There’s no evidence that one side is more believable than the other.”
It hardly matters whose account is accurate.
By all accounts it is still a case of an individual being excluded on the basis of sexual orientation.
It is one thing to question the science or efficacy of anti gay therapy.
It is quite another to prevent an individual, particularly an individual who is not presenting a political message, from participating.
You either believe individuals have a right to make their own choices regarding their own life and lifestyle or you do not.
Indefensible and shameful.
BFM: No one is preventing him from living his life, but the people running the rally don’t have to have him there, if they don’t want to. You. Ow, freedoms and stuff.
No matter which account one believes, it is clear that this gentleman was ostracized because of his religious beliefs, as well as his assertion that with God’s help he–at least–was able to shed his homosexuality. This is a major heresy to the more dogmatic among those pushing a gay political agenda. Their dogma demands total denial of the possibility that a gay person can ever become un-gay, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. They demand, therefore, that he be shunned and barred from appearing in public in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” So where is the “unity?”
Isn’t this the way it normally happens? Some group doesn’t want someone at an event, they complain, the complaint eventually leads to a “we don’t know what to do, could you please excuse yourself from the event to avoid the controversy?” Then when the truth comes out, they deny that they would ever ask that person to leave.
The homosexual activists have long been trying to ride the coattails of the civil rights movement, claiming that they are born the way they are and there is no way out of the lifestyle. It is one of the most fantastic ruses ever perpetrated on the American public. According to them, nobody is “ex-gay” but only closeted. Despite the fact that many hundreds have successfully left the gay lifestyle, professional psychologists continue to propagate the dogma that there is no such thing as ex-gay. Is there really any doubt that gay activists objected to Donnie McClurkin being at the MLK event, and this led to the ex-gay being asked to leave? Is there really any doubt that this is related to his religion which teaches a form of sexual morality that includes leaving the gay lifestyle?
Oops. You mean the Black Civil Rights struggle and the present Gay Agenda are not identical! Not even analogous? Golly, gee. Did anyone think they were?
Heeeeeeeey! what happened to the supposed christian belief, ” hate the Sin, love the sinner”??? More Christian B.S. again, I guess……
Juliet,
Interesting….
Is this the day of the crazy….
I’m curious as to why McClurkin’s story is the one being credited as true. There’s no evidence that one side is more believable than the other.