« Hate Crimes Vote Postponed, AG Eric Holder to Testify Next Week | Main | Power Failure »

18 June 2009


Byron in PGC

At this rate who will be attending? Biden, Barney Frank and some staffers?

I saw Keith Boykin and Alexander Robsinson's name on that list...are they still attending?


--->He has also been one the Administration's most reliable and fiercest gay defenders

Don't you mean apologists? I've seen Stampp on tv and he is 300% Obama.

Stampp is the last person you would expect to drop out of this fundraiser and criticize the WH. smh

Leimert Park

Stampp Cornin wrote "Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore."

That is the "money quote". The dam has broken and people who are the strongest and most visible Obama LGBT supporters are saying "no more." We're just not going to take it anymore. There was no reason for a Democratic LGBT "friendly" administration to use that language in that brief...and you can't just chalk it up to a constitutional defense.

I agree. Close your wallets, do not donate to the DNC, Obama or gay supportive candidates. Donate to your state gay rights group or to AIDS causes. Whatever. But I am no longer going to be viewed as a first class ATM but a second class person.

Leimert Park

Oops of course I meant "Stampp Corbin", sorry!


Many of you saw the Obama administration's betrayal of the lgbt community long before me. Well, the rose colored glasses are off and I'm a lot less hopeful then I was a few weeks ago. Damn..


This is rightfully turning into a debacle for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party in general. Politicians have egos that would dwarf the most deranged Hollywood celebrity. They really thought that they could continue to dismiss gay soldiers(while allowing, per Salon.com, White Supremecists to serve) and then defend DOMA with slanderous language, and gay people would shut up and continue to funnel money to the DNC? Does the President and the DNC understand that they serve at the people's pleaure, that they are our servants, hot the other way around? Anyone gay person who would give money to the DNC at this point needs to be waterboarded.


To show the significance of GLB servicemen in the military, they should all announce to their command officers that they're gay and walk out. That'll show the Pentagon and the President that GLB servicemen probably are responsible for the most high skilled jobs in the military that can't be done by racist high school drop outs. Only then, I think the president will have an 180 degree turn on DADT.


Stamp Corbin seemed like a gay Uncle Tom/mammy in that video. He was utterly embarrassing.

On the other hand, Dan Savage is a great spokesman for gay rights/marriage equality.

Nathan James

I'm still shocked that President Obama, a Constitutional scholar and law professor, would permit a brief supporting DOMA to be submitted at all! DOMA is an end run around Article IV, Section I of the Constitution.

Some people I know are telling me this brief just "slipped by". I am not buying that. I think the language of the DOMA brief is a Freudian slip by DOJ and the Obama administration. It's an accurate reflection of the way political Washington sees the LGBT community. The two most offensive items in the brief, IMHO, are the equation of gay marriage with incest or pedophilia, and the assertion that LGBTs have a lesser "expectation of privacy" than straight people. Those are demonizing, damning statements for an ostensibly pro-LGBT Administration to make.

President Obama said recently that "gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House". I don't see the DOMA or DADT briefs as the act of a "friend" looking out for my best interests...

Derrick from Philly

"Don't you mean apologists? I've seen Stampp on tv and he is 300% Obama."


Well, he's on your side now. Can't you accept him, or do you want to punish him? Remember, the black population was split by the late 1960s--split between the civil rights establish and the "Black Power" & Nation of Islam factions. Fifty years later, look at the result.

You and others who have never trusted the President are due your "I told you so" moment, but be frugal with it. There are some black gay people who maintain total contempt for each other since the Democratic Primaries. We're not afraid of each other...we're not afraid to go at each other again. We shouldn't.



Considering that Savage is a open racist (he was the leader of the "blame blacks for Prop. 8 and let's start showing our true, racist colors" movement that is alive and well) I assume your post was a sarcastic joke. If not, you better be careful about who you praise because they may be your enemy.

Since when did writing a sex column qualify one as a glbt leader? We have many scholars, activists, and policy makers in our community, and yet when the news media want to discuss gay issues they usually turn to a hack like Savage who has no credentials. The same thing happens on race issues, where we are forced to listen to underinformed parties spout off their idiotic opinions. To me, it says something about the media and race that CNN believes that these two are equals in terms of policy discussions. It is an insult to Mr. Stamp.


@ Derrick:

"My side"? Please tell me what side is that? I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries but proudly pulled the lever for him the general election, sent his campaign $100 or so, and did my best to get him elected over that vile John McCain. So who's "side" am I on?

In this particular instance, I'm on the side of the black LGBT community. And yes, Stampp was an apologist in that video, he made apology after apology and refused to discuss the DOMA brief. Then he probably went home, read it, looked at the lack of progres sand said "no more." He is on the community's side.

You wrote something very touching yesterday when you scolded someone for "gloating", I believe you said. You said that despised the brief, the president's action on LGBT rights was poor (I am paraphrasing) but you still supported him but were very disappointed with his gay rights agenda. BRILLIANT. That is how many of us feel. We can support Obama on the economy, health care, etc etc but say he lost your respect on gay rights. That is what Stampp Corbin is doing. It's called being multi- dimensional or sophisticated. But you cannot say that anyone who doesn't praise Obama is not "supporting" him.

I'm sorry, but it was "you" and the army of Obama supporters across the blogs who decided long ago to make this an "us vs. them" issue. It's just like George Bush in the war on terror and I think Rod has pointed that out. How dare you bring up the primaries a year later. I voted for Obama against McCain. My vote is just as equal as YOURS, sir. Just as equal.

As far as "being frugal" with the I told you so's....people can say damn well what they please. But what is really interesting here is YOU and many so called Obama supporters are missing the big story: Most of the high profile Obama "supporters" are drawing the line in the said. Stampp Corbin has raised millions of dollars for Obama. Andrew Sullivan (who I dislike) was his biggest gay supporter on the net. So was Americablog. So was Pam Spaulding. Now they are his biggest critics on gay rights. I would assume because they are extremely disappointed and put their names out there. They rallied people to vote for Obama, raised money for him, and let us not forget trashed his opponent nonstop daily for months. Now they all have egg on their face. There is a big difference between writing blog comments or sitting around at work and saying you are an Obama "supporter" ... and putting your name, face and reputation on the line in front of millions of people ... and akking gays to open their checkbooks, too. Those "A" gays who put their names out there are realizing they need to stand back from Obama and gay rights.

I admire and respect the president on many fronts. But I'm not going to fight and defend a president who won't fight for and defend my rights.

Anthony in Nashville

I first became aware of Corbin when I read something from Corbin on another site a few weeks ago.

It looks like he's really stepping up to the plate as of late.

Even with considering all that LGBTs have put up with, I am surprised the DOMA filing is the straw that broke the camel's back and caused people to put their foot down. Now you got people talking about marches and adopting new political strategies.

You never know what the watershed moments of history will be.


Rod, Derrick, and everyone else... Please excuse the long post.

Derrick, hopefully my tone came across as open. We are black gay brothers and we have to travel the next four or eight years "together."


All I have to add is a high five KevJack on that Dan Savage truth you wrote and his many followers who were as racist as all out after Prop 8, and,now the same ones have turned it to Obama and I for one don't need a sex writer and bad one at that if you've ever read his 'column' speaking for me as an out, proud black gay man, he shares nothing with what my goals are and I have nothing in common with him and his many followers and thier racist notions.

And, Derrick, this is a no win situation when it comes to Obama on gay sites.


I'm not going to wade into someone else's argument or put anyone on a cross but the question needs to be asked, why would anyone of us want to see the president fail?

Stampp Corbin's decision cannot be underestimated. It must have taken a huge amount of soul searching. Prominent supporters of any politician or cause do not make decisions like this without much thought.

Piggybacking on what brother "Kevjack" said: I have disagreed with Stampp Corbin at times. But he is a former head of HRC (??) and a commissioner for one of the largest cities in California. I am astounded CNN booked him debate Dan "Sex Advisor" Savage. Savage has made visibility and progress for gay rights but he and Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan were a piece of work after Prop 8 and started that "blame the blacks" meme. Unforgivable. Kudos to Rod for aggressively calling out those monied, entitled queens.

Derrick from Philly


Yes, your tone certainly came across as open-- and more importantly, your outrage at the President's behavior on gay civil rights is justified.

The President will try to reasure the gay(and friends of gays)wing of his party because he sees there is political danger for him now. And it's the reaction of people who worked hard for him and are now voicing how they feel betrayed by him which will get his attention. So, GRANT, continue to be an activist for human rights for gay folks. And you're right, people who write comments on a blog sitting around at work are not "movement" material...not as valuable to social change as the "doers" anyway.

But again, how do you tell black gay Obama supporters, "this is what we warned you about"? Is insulting us unavoidable?

If you disagree with people on an issue, and later they have to admit that you were right, be careful how you react to their admission that they made a mistake. If you chastise them too hard--if your goal appears to be to humiliate them, then they may became even more entrenched in their opposition--not to the President's betrayal of gay civil rights, but to YOU. Personal animosity will trump common interests.

GRANT, there are working black gay folks (who are not activists) who are getting angrier at gay activists than they are at the President. The offensive language and tone of the DOMA brief means very little them. The hesitation on reversing DADT bothers them, but it doesn't outrage them. BUT people attacking THEM for their support of the President does get them riled up. Putting people on the defensive just makes them more defensive, and eventually, bitter.


I don't think anyone wants Obama to fail. But I do believe that it is our duty to hold him accountable to do the things be said he would do. The time for rhetoric and speeches has passed, and we would like some movement on these issues. Obama himself said that he expects to be challenged by his supporters, and that is a good thing. When we demand to be taken seriously we will be. It certainly seems we have his attention now.

It is just starting now, but soon the white gay elite will blame Obama's race as the reason for his inaction on lgbt issues. You could hear it clearly in Savage's tone on the YouTube link. Obama now has "animous" towards gay people (a real laugh). And you know the words "black homophobia" are not far behind.

I honestly believe that Obama is just not making lgbt issues a priority due to his desire to get republicans on board with healthcare and energy (and possibly financial regulation). He saw what don't ask don't tell did to Clinton, and he doesn't want to empower a very right wing party with a wedge issue. I understand that. I disagree with his assesment of the situation, and don't understand his desire to placate an extreme minority party. But many of the white gay elite (who never put their Hillary signs in their closets) are waiting to bash him. You heard it here first.


Let's just look at the video.

In the video, Stampp Corbin is an apologist for the Obama administration. His arguments, in the video, make absolutely no sense. Later, he apparently came to his senses and decided not to support the upcoming LGBT Democratic fundraiser. But he still looks like a gay Uncle Tom/mammy, in the video, to me.

As far as Dan Savage's "credentials" are concerned, what "credentials" did Malcolm X (a former hustler/criminal) have to be an iconic spokesman for the black civil rights movement of the 1950/60s? James Baldwin's formal education stopped when he completed HIGH SCHOOL. Should we dismiss James Baldwin and all of his work because he didn't have "credentials"?

Regarding your contention that Dan Savage is an open racist, we will have to agree to disagree on that. I will NOT elaborate on why I feel that way because it would only lead to me being flamed. Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Based on what I saw in the above video, I would rather have Dan Savage speaking on LGBT issues/marriage equality than Corbin. In fact, I would rather have Dan Savage speaking for the cause than the seemingly always mild-mannered Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign. That's because I like Savage's fired up sense of outrage when he's talking about LGBT rights/marriage equality.

Kevin Perez

Well, I don't think Savage is a racist but the man does give me a itch while Sullivian gives me a rash.

I still support Obama. Yeah, I know I'm being bit a naive but I refuse to let my optimisim fade! Hope, it's corny I know but I still have lots of Hope!


@ Derrick:

Please re-read my original comment: "Don't you mean apologists? I've seen Stampp on tv and he is 300% Obama. Stampp is the last person you would expect to drop out of this fundraiser and criticize the WH. smh"

That was ALL that I said. I never insulted anyone, I never ever said "this is what we warned you about" or anything to that effect. I'm afraid you are confusing me with someone else or grouping together all perceived former Clinton supporters...or maybe all perceived "opponents" of the administration. Whatever it is, it's misplaced anger and very Nixonian.

But who is "warning" who? Obama's most prominent gay supporters (Stampp Corbin, Sullivan, Aravosis, Pam etc) have become his biggest critics on gay rights. Possibly you're talking about random blog commenters?

Too many of you believe that anyone who criticizes Obama is "attacking" him and somehow race gets into it. I'm just as black as you are and am officially tired of the race card ("how do black gays feel when Obama is criticized"?) always being brought up at this blog. Most of us are black and gay. If you're talking about white gay activists or bloggers, then talk to them or name them.

Oh and if you and many other black gays are "getting angrier at gay activists than they are at the President" that is your problem. Not mine. I hold Obama and all politicians accountable. I don't put them on a pedestal and then get upset when people say you shouldn't put them there. If "the offensive language and tone of the DOMA brief means very little" to you and other brothers and sisters, that shows how politically immature "our" community is. Obama can't even give HEALTH benefits to partners, not spouses but partners, like that black lesbian couple on the blog yesterday. I am sure DOMA and the offensive language of that brief does NOT mean "very little" to that and many other black LGBT couples. I am sure it won't mean "very little" to the thousands of other black LGBTs and their families when and if "health care" is passed. And they are passed up too! But unfortunately you are right, too many black LGBTs are defending a (black) president who is not defending them.

Derrick from Philly


I have to apologize. My comments about "goating" were not specifically aimed at you. All of your postings on this subject have been responsible. GRANT, it's that defensiveness I have when I hear those terms : Obama apologists, Obamabots, "drinking the Koolaid"--some of us get ready for warfare anytime we hear those terms.

"I'm just as black as you are and am officially tired of the race card ("how do black gays feel when Obama is criticized"?) "

No, no, no. You can criticize the black President when he deserves it, GRANT. It's when you criticize his followers, his supporters--that is when the anger rises. That sweet "Obama koolaid" we're accused of being high on is replaced by the most bitter taste of resentment. We are accused of supporting him ONLY because he's black. For some of us black folks who've voted Democrat all our lives (and supported white Democratic presidents in trouble) that is insulting.


@ Derrick:

You're still talking to me and saying "you" but you mean generically, lol.

Re-read my original comment. I specifically limited what was said to Stampp. I said he was an apologist and the last person I would expect to see criticizing the White House. He admits as much and says he was misled. Perhaps when you say "when you criticize" you mean that generically as in "when people" criticize. I don't want to be labeled and categorized with people who I don't know.

But I'm fascinated why you and some others take this so personally. Why do you and so many others question the motives and cut down any other black (or black gay) person who criticizes the president? Why do so many people have to tip toe around egos and "gently" state their positions?

As black folks we traditionally circle the wagons when we perceive "we" are being attacked (OJ, Jesse, Michael Vick, etc). But the extreme defense of Obama is to the detriment of our community. It goes beyond being an apologist when some black gay men are rationalizing the president's cuts to HBCUs, AIDS funding or refusal to act on gay rights as good "politics." I think it's quite sad. As I said, a very vigorous fight and defense for a president who won't fight for you. And by "you", I mean the gay and black gay community.


Good discussion here. I'll have comments when I get home.



Since you missed my point, I will state it again. When we discuss policy on glbt issues in major media the issues should be represented by people knowledgeable about the issues. These people should have credentials in policy, the requisite education, and a record that would make them experts in this area. Any court of law would require the same.

If we are talking about Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 we should not be talking to James Baldwin or Malcolm X-- they were not experts on the issues contained therein. I would use Herbert Hill or Roy Wilkins or even A. Philip Randolph, who were very up-to-speed on employment non-discrimination.

The fact that you take Malcolm or Jimmy or any black activists to be an expert on any black subject shows your ignorance of the issues we face. Our issues are complicated, they can not and should not be minimized and made a show of. We have experts, and they should be used.

If the issue is not taken seriously by the media, they can throw up comedians, clowns, men-on-the-street, and other people who just talk out of their butts because they do not know what they are talking about. Notice that we do not do this with foreign policy, the economy, or healthcare. This is beacuse these issues are seen as serious, and as serious issues they should be discussed and debated by experts with credentials on the issues. Does Dan get invited to speak on trade agreements, healthcare, or other "important" issues? They why do we let this underinformed man speak on glbt issues? He's no more qualified to talk about them than he is to talk about the economy.

If you like Dan as a lgbt spokesperson, so be it. I am sure he will like having you behind in in every possible way. I have the feeling that when he gets back to bashing blacks (did he ever stop?) you will be nodding your head in agreement, given how you have come on this blog. Just make sure you call him "Dan" in public, and save that "massa" stuff for your private meetings.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad