Mar 28, 2008  |  By: CHRISTOPHER BARRON  | COMMENTS     

HAVE ALWAYS been somewhat mystified at the gay community’s embrace of Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has a fairly pedestrian record on what the gay left considers the critical issues for our community. Obama’s thin legislative record reveals little to no leadership on gay-related issues, and his positions on gay issues on the campaign trail have been largely indistinguishable from those of his Democratic opponents (all of whom, with the exception of Sen. Hillary Clinton, he has vanquished).

The love affair between the gay left and Obama seems to be much more about personality than policy, which should make the recent controversy surrounding the bigoted, hate-filled comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright all the more troubling to the gay community.

For almost two decades, Obama has sat in the pews as part of Wright’s 8,000-member congregation. Obama has referred to Wright as his spiritual leader and mentor. Wright married the Obamas, baptized their children and Obama even based his best-selling book, “The Audacity of Hope,” on a sermon by the reverend.

Until recently, very little attention was paid to Rev. Wright. All of that changed when inflammatory sermons delivered by Wright — all of which are available on DVDs the church sells — came to light. 

The clips of the Wright sermons, which have been played and replayed on cable news outlets and YouTube, are nothing short of disgusting. Wright declared that instead of saying, “God Bless the USA,” we should say, “God Damn the USA.” Wright claims that America, not Al Qaeda, is responsible for the 9-11 tragedy. Wright’s profanity-laced tirades also claim that the government supplies illegal drugs to African Americans. He also accuses the U.S. government of, “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”

Wright’s comments aren’t just hateful and bigoted — they are also fundamentally false and until recently these comments had never been challenged by Barack Obama.

IN THE DAYS after the scandal broke, Obama took to the airwaves to distance himself from Wright’s rhetoric. In one interview, Obama explained that he had never personally heard this rhetoric from Wright. Many in the media rightfully pointed out that, considering the depth of the senator’s relationship with Wright, this excuse lacked credibility. Obama later admitted that he had heard some inflammatory rhetoric from Wright, but that he had always disagreed with it. Of course, as far as we know, Obama kept his indignation to himself, never once showing the courage — or even compassion — to speak up to his friend and pastor.

In response to the growing political firestorm, Obama took to the podium and delivered a masterful political speech — masterful in both its soaring rhetoric and emotional appeal, and equally masterful in its cynical attempt to change the issue.

The issue raised by the Wright revelation isn’t about race relations. Indeed, the issue raised by the Wright revelation has nothing at all to do with the reverend and everything to do with Obama and the judgment he exercised.

For nearly two decades, Obama embraced Rev. Wright. Unlike his grandmother, who, like all family, can’t be chosen, Barack Obama affirmatively chose to make this man a central part of his and his family’s life. Wright was nothing like the “crazy uncle” that the Obama apologists portrayed him to be — Obama wasn’t stuck with Rev. Wright, he chose Rev. Wright. 

I DON’T BELIEVE that Obama shares Wright’s outrageous views, but I also still don’t know why Obama would have chosen to associate himself so closely with a man so filled with rage, hate and contempt for this country.

If Obama is going to base his campaign for president on his judgment, then he owes all Americans — including LGBT Americans — an honest explanation for that judgment. 

I wonder what the reaction from the gay left would have been if it were revealed that Jerry Falwell had been John McCain’s pastor for decades or that David Duke had been the best man in his wedding. I am fairly certain that such an intimate association with men with such divisive and repulsive views would certainly be grounds enough not to support his candidacy.

I don’t believe in simple guilt by association, but I do believe it is fair to assess a candidate, particularly their judgment, by looking at those they choose to so closely associate themselves with. Rev. Wright is no different than ...