Wait, this is the same guy who thinks the UAFA will lead to immigration fraud because homos for some reason are more prone to faking marriages to bring their partners into the US than heteros.

Seriously, he's no better than Hillary and after the McClurkin fiasco, he's definitely worse.

I was leaning toward Obama for a while there, but the McClurkin thing finished him for me as a viable candidate. I'll have no truck with bigots or those who promote them and their views.

Michael, thanks for the tranparency. Unfortunately we are not likely to see that level of honesty from the hilary backers.

Also on Obama's LGBT committee, and I've got to say that I don't have real problems with Obama himself, despite recent events. I think his staff has just severely screwed some things up.

Just saying - very few of the decisions being made (like getting him into the whole McClurkin mess in the first place) would I expect he was involved in before it bacame a Big Mess. The fault for getting him into some of those situations lies at the feet of staff who just didn't 'get' the potential pitfalls.

His record as a state legislator, where he could be and was much more hands-on in day-to-day decision-making, is probably the best indication of where Obama's head really is at.

Not saying he doesn't share in the responsibility - they are his> staff - just saying that a Presidential campaign is a massive and many-headed beast, and impugning Obama's personal motives for decisions actually made by his staff seems a little off.

My problem with the McClurkin thing isn't about his initial invitation. If action had been taken once McClurkin's views become known I'd have chalked it up to a bad decision made in the heat of the campaign and would not hold it against Obama. My issue here is that once it did become known, Obama chose to do nothing about it anyway, and, in fact, this man was allowed to preach against homosexuality and denounce it as a sin from the stage of an Obama event.

It's that part of this story, Obama's proactive, informed choice not to prevent this man from speaking out in opposition to the values he is campaigning on, that now causes me to seriously question those values, his judgment, and whether he is truly qualified to lead this country in a manner in which I would be comfortable with and supportive of.

Yes, Rebecca --- you have hit the nail on the head! Obama not stepping in and making sure that McClurkin did nothing but sing is an indication that he (Obama) is trying to dance on both sides of the fence. Instead, he should have stood up for his positions as he has formerly represented himself. If he does this sort of thing during a campaign, how can he be expected to stand up for the GLBT community when he is in the heat of office?

Rebecca, mcclurckin didn't preach about homosexuality. he was just defending himself against people who he felt had misrepresented him. The idea that he gave anything resembling a sermon 'against homosexuality' is just more silly John Aravosis spin.

Oh come on Kevin, I heard what he said and I'm sure you did too. "God delivered me from homosexuality..."? Please...give me a break. The fact is Obama could have stopped this from happening under his banner if he wanted to, and he chose not to. That's a judgment call, and in my opinion, he made the very worst one he possibly could have made.

I'm sorry, but that kind of judgment and that set of priorities is just not what I want to see in the next leader of our country.