Pew Research Center
When President Obama endorsed marriage equality two weeks ago, there was some talk about his position possibly alienating some African-American voters. After all, as the chart on the right shows, support for same-sex marriage in the African-American community has grown in recent years, but opponents clearly still outnumber supporters.
But since Obama's announcement, the larger shift has been towards the president's position, not away from it. Over the weekend, the board of the NAACP, in a near-unanimous vote, followed Obama's lead and endorsed same-sex marriage. Jonathan Capehart's take on this rings true.
When leaders lead, especially on difficult social issues that demand the end of an injustice or the expansion of liberty, people will follow. The announcement Saturday that the NAACP passed a resolution supporting marriage equality is the most important sign yet that President Obama's public support of it had the power to change hearts and minds. [...]
According to the New York Times, [former NAACP chairman Julian Bond] said that Obama's May 9 announcement "was 'a tipping point' for many of the board members." Turns out it was a tipping point for many African Americans, as well.
Rev. Jesse Jackson touted his newfound support for same-sex marriage to culture writer Toure'. House Assistant Democratic Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) did the same with NBC's Chuck Todd. A Post-ABC News poll released last week showed that 54 percent of blacks supported the president's position on same-sex marriage.
After Obama's comments on May 9, there was a fair amount of analysis that said the president's position had symbolic value, but little more. After all, LGBT Americans were no better off on May 10 than they were on May 8.
But with the NAACP speaking with one voice in support of marriage equality, it's a reminder than the president's words -- any president's words -- can have a larger impact on society.
Leadership, in other words, counts.
Leave a Comment:
Mr. Benen,
You use the term "leadership" loosely.
"Leadership" requires the thrust of one's efforts be directed towards tax cuts, deficit reduction, or military spending boosts.
All other initiatives pushed forward are "radical agenda activism" (or the like.)
Please tighten your prose, please, sir.
Excellent David Brooks interpretation!
Not so fast, William. Everything that does not follow your narrow vision cannot be dismissed as radical. Your use of buzz words and other propaganda methods are useless now. The height of the power was with with "Swiftboaters". You have lost your teeth, old man.
Sarcasm fail, Princess.
I applaud the NAACP. They are also showing leadership on this issue.
I would suggest that it is unlikely same sex marriage will cost President Obama a single black vote. He will win an enthusiastic 90% + vote among the black community. The only hope Republicans have with blacks is their voter suppression campaign. If they are successful blacks will be victimized again. Defeating the Republican voter suppression campaign should be the highest priority for every patriotic American. The LGBT community can do a lot in that effort. Once again freedom loving Americans have to stand together in solidarity.
And after we get Obama reelected, the freedom loving Americans have to stand together in solidarity to get Obama to stop his continuation of Bush's assaults on freedoms.
And this is how it works here in America. ' Power From Within ' trumps ' Power Over ' !! The push back against Right-Wing, Radical, Religious-Fanatic, Republicans has only just begun. I applaud this decision by the NAACP and hope it helps push the tidal wave of ' leaning forward ' over and beyond ignorance and homophobia and hate mongering !
...any president's words -- can have a larger impact on society.
And just wait until President Romney reemphasizes his I'm not concerned about the very poor or poor or working poor; but affirms his complete concern for all of the middle class quarter billionaires.
Black people of faith need to follow the rock, Jesus Christ and not the crock, Obama.
I thought the rock's real name was Dwayne...
MeganKI, Jesus said NOTHING about Homosexuality or Gay Marriage! Not one thing. He had more to say about taxes than gay marriage (and he was fine with taxes). Jesus said a lot about loving your neighbor as yourself and NOT standing in judgement of other people. Megan, imagine IF some silly law stood between you and who you wanted to marry and build your family and life with, wouldn't you find that cruel and unfair? Marriage is a CONSERVATIVE institution that promotes monogamy, social stability, happiness and longevity. Why shouldn't we wish those conservative values and blessings for gay couples too?
Christ wasn't a Constitutional Law Scholar, Obama is. I'm a Christian too, but please keep your theocracy out of our secular politics. Seriously, it gives Christians a bad reputation as sanctimonious and judgmental fools. It's not helping your Politics OR our Church.
no skippy...
The 'rock' is Pat Robertson!
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ. Gandi
Jesus called St. Peter his rock. Know your own religion.
Russ Rogers, Jesus said: " a man and a woman shall leave their mother and father and cleave to each other and the two shall become one flesh." One man, one woman, nothing else.
Matt Ryan and Jesus IS MY rock and my fortress. Read the bible. Psalm 31:3
Megan
The psalms were written by King David centuries before Yeshua (Jesus) was born. So it isn't Yeshua he's referring to.
The superscriptions 'Of David' to most of the psalms probably shouldn't be taken as firm indication of authorship, or even of authorship at all. If those superscriptions are meant to indicate authorship, then they are traditional rather than historical. Which is not to say that it isn't possible that there are some psalms which are Davidic in origin, but it also isn't possible to say for certain either way.
Also, while MeganKI is pretty much full of it and clearly does not know how to read properly, it's best not to commit the intentional fallacy as a rebuttal. Authorial intent isn't the sole determiner of meaning, although readers aren't free to make up any old whackadoodle interpretations that suit them. So, a psalm that cannot refer to Jesus may be applied to Jesus so long as the reader doesn't take the application as gospel, to coin a phrase.
On the other hand, forcing modern controversies into ancient texts is pretty much insane, especially when the person doing it isn't sufficiently literate to know that her quotation of Jesus is actually Jesus quoting a passage in Genesis (the clear meaning of which is to give the reason why children leave their parents, nothing else).
MM
For the record I had toyed with using the phrase "attributed" to King David but was concerned about offending someone. I agree about MeganKI lack of bibical schoalrship and inability to read text. Then again I've had (as no doubt you) had more experience in the matter and was trying to be nice (for change ;-) ).
And agreement the passage she sited is about why children leave their parents. That what I was taught in Hebrew school!
I was hoping to spark off something, some kind of reaction from MKI. Doesn't seem to have happened. Pity. It would have been interesting.
I wonder sometimes what those superscriptions are really all about. Some are obviously musical, others occasional, but the 'authorship' ones? I'm sure you know as well as I do that the Psalms are the Jerusalem temple's hymnbook, and that the arrangement and most of the notations have some kind of liturgical purpose. Do the 'authorship' superscriptions serve the same purpose, somehow?
It's the not knowing that makes it fascinating. "The suspense is killing me," as Oscar Wilde wrote in The Importance of Being Earnest. "I hope it lasts."
That's good. It seems so obvious--it's embedded in a collection of stories about the origins of things--but...gah! Try telling that to people interested only in proof-texting.
MM
"That's good. It seems so obvious--it's embedded in a collection of stories about the origins of things--but...gah! Try telling that to people interested only in proof-texting."
I sometimes have problems with the way some Christians interpret that they call the Old Testament (to me Torah). There is no understanding of how things relate to time and place. No understanding of ancient istory in Judea,its people and culture. Using their worldview as the only valid way of interpreting things when it's just not so.
I know the sort of people you're talking about. I've started thinking of them as people who happened upon a Bible by chance one day and decided to make a religion out of it, completely ignorant of its history and uninterested in the fact that there already are two religions that not only use it but produced it in the first place. Any resemblances between these people and historic Christianity are purely coincidental.
Their ignorance is so profound, I'm actually surprised they didn't chose to call themselves 'Pharisees' or 'Philistines', since those words occur far more often in the texts than does 'Christian'. Either would be more fitting. Well, maybe not 'Philistine' since in the time of Saul the Philistines are presented as being able to smelt and forge iron while such sophisticated technology was outside of Israel's reach. The last thing our pseudo-Christians are is sophisticated.
I'm proud of the NAACP.
If by supporting marriage equality, you hold high the christian value of marriage (a dedicated, long term relationship with fidelity, love and respect at it's core) then you're wrong and you need look no further than your own gender specific cumulative track record on the subject. This is equal under the law in the most secular sense of the myth.
I think this pool suggests that maybe more gay Black people need to come out of the closet. That's all.
Hooray for the NAACP!
And for Joe Biden, the man who got it started!
Biden pushed the Dem party to do something it has not done in decades--take a progressive stand on an issue before it becomes popular opinion. Al Smith pushed for civil rights in the 1920's before it was popular. It came within one vote of becoming a part of the Dem party platform during one of Smith's campaigns. The Dem party has a long history of taking up progressive causes to sway public opinion. Obama should take up the cause of income inequality and be the leader of an issue that is so critical to the nation. It will not win him votes or campaign contributions from Wall St., the banks and a lot of wealthy people. But it will clarify what he stands for in this coming election and become part of the Dem legacy. This can lead to other Dems taking principled stands on issues instead of hiding behind safe positions.
I have to say that I agree with MeganKl, we must stand on Jesus word. Russ you stated that God don't address homosexuality in the bible, well I would like for you to take some time and read the book of Genesis chapters 18 & 19 on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. For the Lord destroyed the earth do to the sinful acts that where taking place in the cities. I'm not here to judge but to give facts.. and God does tell us that we as Christians would have to stand in the end times and not fall a prey to the evilness of this world(including the leadership).
People of God if we proclaim to be Christian and stand for Christ we have to know his word, trust his word and believe in it whole heartedly.. For Jesus is the word we read in those passages and messages of the bible and whether we as a people believe it or not it shall come to pass.
It does appear to look good and a victory for the gay movement rights. But, once again God word stands and will not change or faulter regardless.. The enemy is seeking who he can devor, his purpose is to KILL, STEAL AND DESTROY (especially God's word and creation). That is his plan (anything opposite of God's plan) read 1 Peter 5:6-11 and as Saints of God Isaiah 41:10 tells us to Fear not, for He is with us.. read it! He will continue to hold us as we continue to stand on his word and follow him.
My Prayers will continuously go up for our nation for only through Christ will be saved.. IN JESUS NAME!
First off, you should be using the NIV version.. The King James Version is
riddled with mistakes and additions that were added by previous
scribes and NOT the apostles. It's a horrid translation. Check out the
Dead Sea Scrolls for more info. As far as you using Genesis to support you claims as a Christian is laughable. All of Jesus' preachings were done in parables, none of which should be taken literally. Read Matthew 7:12.. Jesus himself says that the golden rule sums up all of the old Law and Prophets. Meaning the old Jewish Law doesn't pertain to Christianity. So using old Jewish scriptures are a moot point and should NOT be brought up in a Christian discussion. You are taking the scriptures too literally. Paul talks about how this is a problem in 1 Corinthians 9:7-10 and 2 Corinthians 3:6-16. In Romans 7:8, Paul also talks about how it is impossible to follow the 10th commandment. Christianity is based on two passages, Matthew 7:12 and John 3:16. All of the crap is just made up by people who want to judge other people. So can you please follow Jesus' teachings and not hate people b/c they are different than you.
@mrstoni, Please... stop hatin' in Jesus' name. God is Love.
I would go with the New Revised Standard Version. But that's just me. Other than that, pretty much what BigSwede said.
Besides which, homosexuality as a concept was only defined in the 19th century. Although homosexuals have always been around, we started thinking of them in a new way when that word was coined (given that there is a feedback loop of a sort between language and thought). So it is at best extremely anachronistic to project the category 'homosexuality' onto any ancient text, even when (or, especially when) it seems as though doing so makes sense.
This is one step towards equality. Please help me make the next step by helping me out with this petition.
Can you sign the petition I created, and pass it around to as many people as you can?: http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-food-and-drug-administration-allow-sexually-active-gay-men-to-donating-blood
First off, you should be using the NIV version.. The King James Version is
riddled with mistakes and additions that were added by previous
scribes and NOT the apostles. It's a horrid translation. Check out the
Dead Sea Scrolls for more info. As far as you using Genesis to support you claims as a Christian is laughable. All of Jesus' preachings were done in parables, none of which should be taken literally. Read Matthew 7:12.. Jesus himself says that the golden rule sums up all of the old Law and Prophets. Meaning the old Jewish Law doesn't pertain to Christianity. So using old Jewish scriptures are a moot point and should NOT be brought up in a Christian discussion. You are taking the scriptures too literally. Paul talks about how this is a problem in 1 Corinthians 9:7-10 and 2 Corinthians 3:6-16. In Romans 7:8, Paul also talks about how it is impossible to follow the 10th commandment. Christianity is based on two passages, Matthew 7:12 and John 3:16. All of the crap is just made up by people who want to judge other people. So can you please follow Jesus' teachings and not hate people b/c they are different than you.
I appreciate all of you guys comments.. and like I stated I'm not trying to judge, but bring truth and light to a situation. We all have our own opinion and thoughts and I spoke mine. I will continue to uphold the word of God regardless and stand on what Jesus has said. I Love all regardless this is what we are to do.. Loving you and condoning your actions are two different things... I Love regardless of sexual preferences but like I stated I don't agree with the chooses been made. You can interpret the Bible to fit you're itchy ears so you can feel comfortable where you're at, and I will choose to follow Christ regardless.. EVERYTHING IS A CHOOSE.. GOD GAVE US THAT.. AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO CHOOSE.. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND KEEP OUR SOULS! GOD BLESS YOU ALL IN JESUS NAME.
By the way I don't proclaim to be something I'm not.. I AM A CHILD OF GOD(CHRISTIAN) AND I WILL OBEY HIS WORD, NO MAN CAN TAKE THAT FROM ME!
NIV King James Bible Version speaks the same as the original.. Have them both.
I have attached a little information for you to read and this comes from the NIV Bible, check it out for yourself.. and in here once again under the New Law as you so graciously stated BigSwede888 . Jesus words talks about SEXUAL IMMORALITY!
<< Matthew 15 >>
New International Version
Clean and Unclean
17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’
I think we have a general consensus migrating slowly toward the freedom of religion doesn't mean you can override the equality civil laws because of your religion. This individualism espoused would be more aptly applied to you as an individual are guaranteed freedom of your religion, in your individual life, your family, your house.
But those trying to enforce each brand of their individuality upon others is no longer free. Which is in the Constitutional Amendments that removed wording about slaves being counted as partial persons and all persons are equal.
Trying to subvert the Constitution, the document we say we all support, we cannot use the Bible as the source of laws, even if it is in your beliefs, your religious views that all are not equal. We cannot claim freedom of religion by stating everyone must use my beliefs, because there are religious institutions that do believe in equality for all.
I have dabbled with scripture and we have many examples of treating everyone, including enemies as we would like to be treated with love and respect.
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.
Trying to substitute judgement of perceived sexual behavior in place of treating others as yourself is out of bounds. There is a person, a neighbor right there, but the sex thing is leaping in front of love.
In Christianity, which is the claimed religion mostly disseminating the priority is sexual behavior (perceived or real- i.e. the person that suggested striking the child the moment of perceived homosexual tendencies) Some are suggesting that Christianity, only certain branches of Christianity and try to rally other religions to agree with what many scholars say are erroneous translations and try to make today fit into centuries old language and events.
How do we deem homosexuality is the only sexual immorality?
There is the fear that allowing same sex marriages will hurt the kids. Well not having same sex marriages hurts the kids. The continued bullying of existing families is a horrendous policy. That is the outcome in real life. So, there is this desire to perpetuate the beatings until fear makes people miserable but compliant. Wonder why people are killed and take their own lives? Because of insistence that there's something wrong with you. And if you don't change from what you are we will make you suffer. Unbelievably (literally) loving toward persons? Even your enemy is to be loved and treated hospitably.
There are less than loving and hospitable deeds coming out of Christians (and other religions who espouse the same sort of hospitality and treating people with love and respect).
The U.S. is based in Constitutional laws and equality with freedom of religion, no religion is essential to a free nation.
It seems the Bible is based on God, God is love, Loving God, loving your neighbors is essential. If someone asks for something, give it and more.
Civil Rights were asked for in the 60's. It has the backing of the laws, although many people do not respect even those civil rights because of personal beliefs.
I am elated the NAACP has stated same sex marriage is a civil right.
Civil is separate from religion or spirituality.
Let me clarify, freedom of religion and freedom of no religion (to be agnostic or atheist).
There shall be no religious test required for holding office in the U.S. (it's in the main part at the end of the Constitution)
Thanks for your opinion.. which we all have. Also, I'm tried of everyone trying to compare this movement with Slavery..
Slavery was not a choose of life, and same sex marriage/relationships is. NO one asked to be in slavery, couldn't choose to be in it or not.. it was brought onto the people.. So ok you have the right to choose what you want and voice your opinion, but PLEASE QUIT COMPARING TO SLAVERY.. Truly no comparison in my book.. AND THIS IS MY OPINION!
Thanks
I did not compare to slavery, mrstoni. You are choosing to twist this into comparing to slavery. My reference to slavery has to do with Constitution, which defined persons.
The Constitution says all people are treated equally under the law. I am comparing persons as persons alone.
I truly never made such a comparison.
The civil right is what we are talking about. The NAACP acknowledges the LGBTQ persons are being treated less than equal under the law. The civil rights movement was not for slaves, but persons being treated equally under the law. What did MLK say?
-- Speech in St. Louis, Missouri, March 22, 1964
-- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963
Persons are persons. Equal is equal. I respect how sensitive this is and I implore those that think of same sex marriage or being able to discriminate against persons based on their orientation to understand: By no means does this compare to slavery. Injustice of slavery was taken from laws in 1860s, civil rights came a hundred years after that.
I was talking about persons in the Constitution, not slavery.
I agree that marriage equality should be enjoyed by MM, MF, MFM, MFF, M+dog, etc Even petasexuals should be allowed to marry whatever piece of furniture they want! And Sister Wives should no longer be ashamed but instead a husband should be allowed to marry all 4 of his girlfriends! That's a growing population too and the same arguments can be made for them! Marriage Equality should be about contracts and Love, not about wither the act of giving birth and raising a child should equal tax breaks and retirement.
DNFTT
In my mind, same sex marriage has nothing to do with the "recognition" of such by society, or the use of the word "marriage", but everything to do with equal protection under the law. Including equality in tax law, benefits for spouses, immigration, health care decisions, etc, etc, etc. Why should I not be able to file taxes jointly with my partner, and enjoy the benefits of such? Because we are two men? that is Discrimination. And I do not buy the argument that marries couples should get that tax benefit to help with the raising of children, That is Discrimination. If anything, straight couples with children should pay more taxes because their children will go to school, etc. Why should I pay more than a straight couple only to use less of the services my tax dollars pay for. That is Discrimination, and it must end.
There are same-sex couples with kids. There are different-sex couples with no kids. You sound like a right-winger with your complaint about taxes, except you are complaining about breeders rather than people on unemployment. Otherwise, no difference.